"I also would add that most of the distaste most Americans feel about evangelicals, and about fundamentalists in particular, has to do with the fact that these groups are perceived as being working class, and therefore ignorant."

No. It has more to do with their being, um, evangelicals, i.e., evangelizers, proselytizers, witnesses for the faith, etc., who attempt to convert people who believe otherwise (and who are most often simply minding their own business). I can't count the times in my life when I've been unwelcomely accosted with "Have you accepted Jesus Christ as your personal savior?" (or close variations thereof). If evangelicals didn't evangelize because they believed their religion literally commands them to do so, they wouldn't be so resented by people who aren't evangelicals.

"I can speak with some authority that most evangelicals of those groups know nothing of church history or of their own group's history, nor do many evince interest in those areas."

I agree with this woman's assessment about the broad evangelical community in the South, but international academic Pentecostal groups like the Society for Pentecostal Studies foster a deep commitment to historical, ethnographic, and philosophic studies. Scholars like Vinson Synan, for example, are deeply committed to parsing the history of Pentecostalism. Amos Yong, for example, is stretching the boundaries of practical theology. There is no glass ceiling for women in the SPS either.

The phenomenal growth of Pentecostalism worldwide has fueled a good deal of self examination, part of which has spawned a lively academic community. Will that mindset reach the broad community? In part it already has, but American Evangelicals are not very good at change in general: note the Gallup poll that puts the number of Americans committed to a young earth at around 40%.

"[A] quasi-mythological structure that everything must begin with an initial paradise, followed by a fall, then an increasing degradation, then a final redemption."

This is not just fundamental to an evangelical worldview. It is, in fact, an essential aspect of much orthodox Christian thinking. All one needs to do is read Augustine's De civitate Dei to see that this is an essential pattern of many Christian theologies of history, both microcosmic and macrocosmic. Indeed, the cycle of crisis-judgment-resolution is a hallmark even of Jewish and Hellenistic apocalypticism, and one can find applications of it at various levels of circularity and concreticity throughout the history of Christian thought (e.g. in the works I study of twelfth-century reformers).

As a current evangelical who also lived in the South, I take a certain exception with the notion of "anti-intellectualism" that the writer of this letter has accused envangelicals of being. While it is certainly true that, at the level of laity, there has been a history of quasi-anti-intellectualism, it has never been outright rejected. The fundamentalist movement may have done much to counteract the increased intellectualism towards which evangelical churches and denominations had attained, but much of the influence of fundamentalism is being reversed. There is, in fact, a movement referred to popularly as the "new evangelicals" who do not necessarily vote conservative republican (in fact many have lost faith in the democratic process as a whole), who have varying levels of openness to homosexuality, and who encourage dialogue with contemporary theological and biblical interpretation methods.
Additionally, while I agree that Detwiler is correct in his assessment of the reformed perspective being more intellectual than Arminianism, it would be a mistake to discount Arminian leaning scholarship (or, more precisely, scholarship which is simply not Calvinist), as evidenced particularly by intellectual resurgences in the Southern Baptist Convention.
With regards to historical outlook, it is also a mistake to imply that evangelical leaning denominations are unaware of their own history. There are historical societies and movements focused on denominational history within many of the evangelical denominations. From my own tradition, Southern Baptist, there is a revival to learn more about Baptist history. This can be seen in the Founders Conferences, though they are admittedly biased toward male Calvinists, and works on baptists as a whole, see Leon MacBeth's The Baptist Heritage, or within a specific region, such as The Alabama Baptists.
Finally, although Francis Schaeffer's works have been known as standards in the evangelical field, they are now view by many evangelicals as innaccurate, outdated, or biased through a specific lens of history. Personally, I prefer the concise monograph, The American Evangelical Story, by Douglas Sweeney. In the introduction, especially, Sweeney outlines how evangelicalism is notoriously difficult to define and oversimplistic understandings of it, such as the one that seems to be at work here, have led to misunderstandings and misreadings.
A better way to understand evangelicalism might be to look across the spectrum of those who consider themselves to be evangelical which includes members of mainline denominations and the emerging (and even emergent) church. The understanding of what it is to be evangelical cannot come from the media, which too often places it within a political spectrum, which, as I have already mentioned, is utterly rejected by many within evangelicalism.

"I also would add that most of the distaste most Americans feel about evangelicals, and about fundamentalists in particular, has to do with the fact that these groups are perceived as being working class, and therefore ignorant. And in fact, evangelicals do hail primarily from the working class and lower bourgeoisie, from the statistical studies I've been able to find (check out Thaddeus Coreno's Fundamentalism as a Class Culture)."

Two points:

I think the author (or the writer of the original comment in the forum) makes a mistake to use "evangelical" and "fundamentalist" as interchangeable terms. Many evangelicals would never consider themselves fundamentalist, which makes me wonder about the statistics of economic status as well.

More importantly, do Americans feel a "distaste" for evangelicals? What percentage feel distaste, and is this a universal distaste, or just for those who have attempted toproselytize them in a way they felt was unwelcome? How and by whom was this measured?

This seems to be an essay written without much scholarship behind it.

I grew up as a working-class Southern Baptist in Baltimore in the 60's, and I remember a different S. Baptist convention from the current one. I remember learning about the history of the baptist movement in our country--Roger Williams, etc., that of our church etc., and I was taught to have pride that our church allowed people to choose baptism through an exercise of independent will rather than having it forced on them as infants.

As a Unitarian Universalist, I feel compelled to confess that I do have some sympathy for those evangelicals who proselytize--if they believe you are about to be harmed (sent to hell) what kind of people would they be if they didn't try to help you avoid that? At the same time, I have no patience for fundamentalists in my extended family who proselytize out of self-satisfaction.

As an ex-working class kid, I absolutely agree that there is class prejudice against fundamentalists/evangelicals among many who would never complain about Catholic/Jewish/Hindu/Episcopalian/ thought and practices--perhaps because of those traditions as literate ones? But all religions, even these highly codified ones, are equally full of the most fantastical belief in miracles, souls, rituals with candles, etc., etc. They are all equally dignified/silly depending on your point of view. Whether they have produced scholars or not is probably something valued most by scholars, not congregants.

From the website of the National Association of Evangelicals:

"The mission of the National Association of Evangelicals is to extend the kingdom of God through a fellowship of member denominations, churches, organizations and individuals, demonstrating the unity of the body of Christ by standing for biblical truth, speaking with a representative voice, and serving the evangelical community through united action, cooperative ministry and strategic planning."

Sounds like proselytizing to me.

"We believe the Bible to be the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative Word of God."

Sounds like fundamentalism to me.

@goxewu:
It is true evangelicalism feels a need to proselytize (to share what they view as THE good news). That, in fact, seems to be the only unifying factor among evangelicals. The fact of the matter is that is a very broad term, so broad as to be almost unhelpful. While they may feel a need to share this gospel, the manner in which they do so can vary widely from the emergent church in their "beginning the conversation" where they merely wish to have an honest discussion about religious beliefs from a largely personal perspective without really even expecting a conversion (yes in most descriptions the emergent church is largely considered evangelical), to some of the more militant fundamentalist groups who want to establish a state-church in America and kick those out who don't convert.

As far as fundamentalist, while it may be true that most (not all) fundamentalists are evangelicals, it is certainly not true that all evangelicals are fundamentalists. The National Association of Evangelicals is a voluntary organization that in no way speaks for all evangelicals. A large number of them may feel that the Bible, while still the Word of God (or a record of the Word of God), and still in some manner authoritative, is not necessarily infallible (and are, quite frankly, distressed at such terminology). One cannot select a group that simply bears the name of National and whatever religious group and assume they speak for everyone within that religious group. For instance, look at Baptists: The Southern Baptists extend far beyond the American South, and then there are the National Baptists, The American Baptists, The American Baptist Churches USA (formerly Northern Baptists), National Convention of Baptist, etc., etc., etc.

Bottom line: Evangelical is largely broad term, the only unifying factor across all spectrum seems to be a felt need to relate to others the Gospel (and even what constitutes the Gospel cannot strictly be defined). In light of that, the term is so broad as to be largely unhelpful except for those looking at specific segments of evangelical or relations among diverse evangelical groups.

Re #8:

t_rey wants to have it both ways: 1) For nice purposes, e.g., constituting an important phenomenon worthy of serious scholarship, "evangelicals" have a nature, a character, but 2) When the nature and character of "evangelicals" starts to seem a little untoward (e.g., they...er, evangelize, and they're generally literal and unbending in their religious beliefs), why then, golly gee, "evangelical" suddenly becomes so broad and complex a category that it's not a category anymore.

The sophistry about the Baptists, for instance. t_rey would probably have one believe that, oh, newspapers with such different names as "The Daily Worker," "The World Worker," "The Socialist Worker," "The Socialist Daily News," "The Worker's Tribune," etc., indicate that there's hardly any "socialist" commonality among them.

And enough with such euphemisms as "share what they view as THE good news," and "a felt need to relate to others the Gospel." Evangelicals are like life insurance salesmen. They may start with wonderful abstractions like "security" and "peace of mind," but they try to seal the deal with descriptions of hardships that'll befall your family down the road if you fail to buy their life insurance. Similarly, evangelicals may start with "the good news," but the bottom line is the Lake of Fire and eternal damnation if you don't accept Jesus Christ as your savior.

None of this is to say that "evangelicals" aren't a legit subject for scholarship. But let's not pretend we're talking Baha'i or Unitarianism here.

Re #9:

1) I'm actually undecided as to how worthy an endeavour it is to study evangelicals broadly speaking. It may be worthwhile to study individual evangelical movements, but then why bother with a specifically "evangelical" label. While I'm not sure it is unworthy of scholarship, I am inclined to say that the first step for such scholarship should be to more accurately define evangelical. 2) Despite the difficulty that goxewu seems to have in understanding the complexities of evangelicalism, I was not being, for lack of a better term, wishy-washy. It does seem that the only unifying characteristic is the need to "evangelize" (but even this term is unhelpful as it means too many things to too many people). While many are literal, many are not in their interpretations of Scripture, aside from the fact that it holds some sort of authority and that there was an historical Israel and an historical Jesus, there is little that can be universalized about their views of literal understandings of scripture. While there does seem to be something in common among evangelicals which MIGHT warrant their study, the term is, at present, still too ill-defined and broad. (there's no "suddenly" about it)

The reference to diverse baptist groups in my previous post was in direct response to goxewu use of the National Association of Evangelicals statements as being defining of all evangelicals everywhere. While members of the NAE may be evangelical, there are evangelicals who disagree with (and who are radically different from) the NAE. They point about baptists I was making was that simply because there are many baptist groups who claim to be national or american, does not mean that they are all authoritative on what they state concerning baptists (nor indeed that there is much in common aside from an emphasis on credo-baptism by immersion). SImply understood, the NAE is an organization for evangelicals, but is not THE evangelical association.

Additionally, while some evangelicals may seem like life insurance salesmen, this is hardly an attribute that can be universalized. The simple fact of the matter is, many who self-identify as evangelicals will never try to "seal the deal." Additionally, some evangelicals would also espouse a Universalist view of salvation (I believe that is the term goxewu meant). They believe that while they are called to share the good news (again whatever that means), that in the end, "All will be well," which they take to be a universal salvation (there are other reasons to "evangelize" beyond simply helping others to avoid hell). Incidentally, if goxewu did actually mean unitarian (those who deny a Trinity), then there are evangelicals who would fit into that category as well. ("Unitarians" is a shortened term for the "Unitarian-Universalist" church which affirms both of these beliefs)

What I am saying is that the case has not yet been made that study "evangelicals" broadly conceived is a legitimate field of scholarship. It might be, but currently it is still finding its way. If goxewu would care to actually read some of the scholarly material which have thus far been produced on evangelicalism, rather than making sweeping claims based either upon media/popular perception or personal experience, then goxewu would realize that the vast majority of the lengthier studies begin with a discussion of the difficulties in defining evangelical and the ultimate decision that each has made regarding what that definition will be for the purpose of his/her work. None of them make sweeping generalizations, and few of the definitions are the same. The only one repeated, that I can recall, is that an evangelical is "an individual who self-identifies as an evangelical."

Bottom line: I'll say it again. Evangelical is a broad term. Anyone who has actually engaged thoughtfully with evangelical scholarship understands this. While in Germany evangelical simply refers to the Lutheran church, in Britain it refers to those who tend to be more (Dortian) reformed and ascribe to substitutionary atonement, in America it has very broad uses. If evangelical scholarship is to move forward, the problem with definitions must first be addressed, and it is far from resolved.

t_rey's #10 the is the kind of logorrheic pussyfooting ("I'm actually undecided as to how worthy an endeavour it is to study evangelicals broadly speaking," "I'm unsure," and so on for about 700 words--about even STUDYING something!) that gives academe a bad name. Everything t_rey says about the looseness of the category of "evangelicals" could be said about, oh, Republicans, professional athletes, Americans, single mothers, truck drivers, et al. So there's probably not much point in studying them as groups, and that's probably why there have never been any scholarly books on those subjects. Perhaps the very term "evangelicals" should be stricken from the lexicon.

Re: #11

goxewu apparently needs to reexamine what academe actually means. Studying evangelicalism as a unique discipline is a new enterprise, it is still budding. As such there may be false starts and it may not become a worthy endeavour. That's what academia is about. Because this discipline is still in its early stages, it is too early to determine whether or not it will become a fruitful exploration or not, or even whether it will have to be radically redefined instead. As such, caution is advised.

Additionally, determining exactly what the definitions within the field will be is of tantamount performance. It is not a mistake to cautiously pursue this and press the point of definitions, it is a necessary step. Evangelical is still a fairly new term, relatively, and so its definition is not set. As I mentioned, the current scholarship recognizes this difficulty, yet goxewu is so obtuse as to assume the he knows what the definition is when scholars who have spent years of their lives examining this issue are still uncertain.

The key difference between evangelicals and the other groups mentioned by goxewu is that the other groups have agreed upon what it is that defines them. Republicans have a general idealogy (and what Republican has meant has changed over time); it is universally agreed that professional athletes are persons who are paid for participating in athletic or sporting events; etc. What evangelicals are, however, is still open for debate and definitions are often conflicting (one definition is even as a response against fundamentalism). Still, most (including myself) believe that evangelical must mean SOMETHING, they are simply unclear as to what it is that this means exactly. If one were to do even a simple web query for evangelical, one would find numerous definitions.

It is clear that goxewu is completely unfamiliar with the discipline and content to work off of personal assumption and media generalizations. That is not academe. That is laziness. As someone who has spent time working with the discipline I am taken aback at the cavalier and arrogant attitude that goxewu takes in response to what he admits is a "legit" academic discipline.

Re #12: Hairsplitting, obfuscation and lack of common sense.

For instance, the hypothetical of "professional athletes." There is no across-the-board agreement of what defines them. College D-1 football players are pros, but don't think they are. Low-rank BMXers who get free jerseys and decals think they are, but aren't. Curlers think they're athletes, lots of other people in sports don't think so. And so on. But scholarship has been done on professional athletes without being derailed at the outset by some fuzziness at the edges, and disagreement over definitions. "If one were to do even a simple web query for [professional athlete], one would find numerous definitions." Right.

"Studying evangelicalism as a unique discipline is a new enterprise, it is still budding. As such there may be false starts and it may not become a worthy endeavour. That's what academia is about. Because this discipline is still in its early stages, it is too early to determine whether or not it will become a fruitful exploration or not, or even whether it will have to be radically redefined instead. As such, caution is advised." Boy, is this a lot of words to say, "Be careful." Nobody, I gather, is proposing a new building for the Department of Evangelical Studies...just scholarship, i.e., reasearch, analysis, and publication.

"What evangelicals are, however, is still open for debate and definitions are often conflicting (one definition is even as a response against fundamentalism). Still, most (including myself) believe that evangelical must mean SOMETHING, they are simply unclear as to what it is that this means exactly." How is t_rey or anybody else who's interested (and certainly anybody who thinks "evangelical must mean SOMETHING") going to find out, even provisionally, "what it is that this means exactly" without scholarship on it?

t_rey might try to recall that the original article, the letter to the editor, the comments on it, and this thread, have concerned the LACK of scholarship of evangelicals--something t_rey seems, peculiarly, to favor because he or she is so unsure about everything.

Re #13:

It is a mistake to assume that "hairsplitting" has no place in academe. In fact, much of academia is hairsplitting. I may be hairsplitting but it is a pretty important "hair" to split.

I wish to clarify 3 points: 1) I am not in favour of a general lack of knowledge. I am in favour of proceeding, only doing so cautiously. As such, definitions cannot be assumed with a cavalier attitude, but must be arrived upon through careful research. If it is discovered that no suitable definition can be found then scholarship must either cease or redifine the terms of its search and eschew the title "evangelical."
2) The problem with definitions is particularly present in research regarding evangelicals in a way that it is not with professional athletes or the other genres mentioned in 11. While this may be an issue in the study of professional athletes (I haven't read much on that), it is not an issue of the same sort as it is in scholarship about evangelicals. I am not merely pontificating (excuse the pun), this is supported by the current scholarship. If goxewu would take the time to actually survey the scholarship that hopes to thoroughly examine "evangelicals" s/he would realize that the problem with defining what constitutes an evangelical is still one of THE defining issues.
3) The point of my initial response to goxewu, and all subsequent responses, was his cavilier and uniformed definition of evangelicals that he assumed (i.e. that the National Association of Evangelicals determines what is or is not evangelical; re: comments 7, 8). goxewu attempts to equivocate "evangelical" with "fundamentalist." S/He is assuming what remains to be proven. I am suggesting that scholarship in the field needs not to assume this, but instead actually perform research. My comments have been directed moreso at this equivocation and the need for cautious definitions arrived at through meticulous study instead of it. There is too much assumption, largely due either to flawed media perception or goxewu's own pressumptions and/or personal experience.

In the end it is clear that goxewu has not actually engaged in the research. S/He accuses me of wanted to avoid research, while I have actually engaged in the very research, and familiarized myself with the current scholarship available both from within the movement as well as from external observers. These are tasks which the comments of goxewu makes clear s/he has not performed. As such the uninformed opinions of goxewu are just that. Instead of making sweeping claims, generalisations and equivocations, I am suggesting cautious examination of a fascinating and hugely diverse segment of the American population, and delaying judgment on what constitutes and evangelical until more research has been done.

(Sigh.)

Of course I haven't "actually engaged in the research." I'm not all that interested in evangelicals and I'm not a professor of religion (or sociology or social anthropology.) But given the noise evangelicals make and the clout they have in this society, I keep an eye out for them and what they do and say.

I do appreciate the wonderful, circular mea exculpa lurking in the intellectual fog of t_rey's obsessive caution: "I am suggesting cautious examination of a fascinating and hugely diverse segment of the American population, and delaying judgment on what constitutes and evangelical until more research has been done." In other words, no research until we have a definition, but we can't have a definition until sufficient research is done, which we can't begin until we have a definition that can't be had until research is done, which can't...etc., etc. Priceless.

Re: 15

I would greatly appreciate it if goxewu would be willing to point out the language where I discouraged research. As I have said repeatedly, I am not against research. What I am against, however, is assumed definitions. Apparently goxewu knows exactly what an evangelical is without engaging in the research.

Further making my point, goxewu implies that he knows evangelicals are a unified group who are unilaterally making the same noise and pushing the same agenda through their "clout." I'm sorry if goxewu can't be bothered to actually make consistent statements, claiming on the one hand that he knows exactly what constitutes an evangelical, what they say and what they do, while also saying that more research is done.

I am also sorry that goxewu seems to have some difficulty with the concept of exploratory research, which is the phase of current evangelical scholarship. I am in favour of research. I am against assuming the results of research yet to be conducted or still being undertaken. Yet goxewu has lost sight of the original comment stream and resorted to making sarcastic commentary against me personally rather than supporting his initial point (re: comment 7) that evangelical=fundamentalist. This is the fault I initially addressed and have been concerned with all along, yet goxewu has been unable to provide sufficient evidence to support his claim, thus resorting to simple deflection and misdirection.

Hello? The word "evangelical[s]" is used all over the place, in the letter to the editor that's the subject of this thread, and in the article referred to in it. Very intelligent people seem to think they know what it means enough to talk and about about it. (One can, by the way, do this looking-into-the-abyss with any word, including "word"--is "Arrgh!" a word? is a hyphenate one or multiple words? is "foreground" one or two words? and so on--so that a definition of it that includes everything, eliminates any fuzziness at the fringes, and applies to all cases, is impossible.)

As for cold feet about research, try this: "I'm actually undecided as to how worthy an endeavour it is to study evangelicals broadly speaking. It may be worthwhile to study individual evangelical movements, but then why bother with a specifically 'evangelical' label. While I'm not sure it is unworthy of scholarship, I am inclined to say that the first step for such scholarship should be to more accurately define evangelical."

And as for "sufficient evidence to support his claim," my only claim is that there is such a thing as "evangelicals" in American religion. The term is used about a hundred times in this post and thread, and a whole lot by t_rey him/herself. I'll rest on that.

re: #17 I will adress each paragraph in kind

par. 1. What goxewu describes is a problem with language and philosophy of language, what I describe is a problem with determing the direction for a discipline. The two are not the same. The first is beyond the scope of any of this article (try some Wittegenstien), the second is one of the points of this article. People do not fully understand what an evangelical is, that's where the scholarship is. They are trying to find a suitable definition rather than assuming one. Not having a suitable definition, however, does not preclude it's usage. I am merely pointing out that the label more refining before it is used as an informative moniker, while the media and goxewu's previous comments seemed to assume it already yielded all the information necessary to define the field of study. When new fields emerge they must always adress this issue while, paradoxically, using the term.

par. 2 If goxewu will take the time to actually read the quote rather than simply pasting it, s/he will see that I am suggesting research proceed. I also suggest a possible place for that research to begin. I nowhere declare that research should not occur, yet I do recognize that if the research hits a dead end, a very real possibility, it should not continue in that same direction.

par. 3 It seems goxewu has rescinded his/her initial position. If one will reexamine comment 7, one will notice that goxewu is claiming that evangelical=fundamentalist. This is the claim that I am attempting to counteract. If goxewu has abandoned it, then that is fine, only s/he should not claim that this is her/his "only claim." As far as whether "there is such a thing as 'evangelicals' in American religion," I have never doubted that this is the case. In fact the impetus for my argument was that goxewu does not really understand what an "evangelical" is, since his initial comment merely equated it with fundamentalist. I do not understand it fully, but I seem to have a better grasp on it than goxewu.

goxewu is welcome to rest on that final point, but I don't really see what point is being made, or where s/he thinks I have gone awry.

Oh (pardon the pun) Lordy:

Re "par. 1.": More wriggling. Apparently "suitable" definition is different from "workable" definition, which a whole lot of people, including scholars in religion, seem to have concerning evangelicals, since they're doing research on them. It's not nice to be aggressively patronizing, as in "Try some Wittgenstein." The blowback from that sort of condescension can be painful, but I'll go easy for now. And enough of this "media" straw man. I'm talking general usage. Finally, we are talking a brand of belief in the supernatural, and millions of people running and altering their lives according to the supposition of a supernatural being a definition of whom is famously elusive. Considerable irony here.

Re "par. 2.": Add "I am suggesting research proceed. I also suggest a possible place for that research to begin. I nowhere declare that research should not occur, yet I do recognize that if the research hits a dead end, a very real possibility, it should not continue in that same direction' to ""I'm actually undecided as to how worthy an endeavour it is to study evangelicals broadly speaking. It may be worthwhile to study individual evangelical movements, but then why bother with a specifically 'evangelical' label. While I'm not sure it is unworthy of scholarship, I am inclined to say that the first step for such scholarship should be to more accurately define evangelical," and you've got a lulu. We should proceed with research, but it's not really research yet because we don't have a definition, which we can't have until we do more research that may hit a dead end because it might turn out there's no such thing as what we were doing research on--which we would known if we'd done the research on that thing that can't we define in spite of the fact that we could define it well enough to do research on. Lucky's speech in "Waiting for Godot," anyone?

Re "par. 3.": I didn't say, in #7 or anyplace else, that "evangelical = fundamentalism." What I implied was that that there's a symbiotic relationship between Christian evangelism in America and Christian fundamentalism in America, probably to the degree that most evangelicals are pretty fundamentalist,* although probably higher than the percentage of fundamentalists who are evangelicals.** This is admittedly a guess; this is after all, a comment thread on a blog post, not a footnote in a theology dissertation. If somebody ever gets off the schneid and does any research on the subject, and I'm informed of the results, I'll be happy to adjust these estimates.

* The simpler, i.e., more fundamentalist, something is, the better it works with evangelizing. One can see this at work in recent politics, where simple "solutions" to complex problems have been much more easily proselytizable than more complex and nuanced ones.

** Many fundamentalists, in my direct and indirect experience, are as hermetic as they are evangelical, and as protective and self-congratulatory about knowing the secret of eternal life as they are cheerfully willing to spread it to others. But--still within my direct and indirect experience--most fundamentalists I know are more or less evangelical and most evangelicals with whom I've had direct or indirect contact are more or less fundamentalist.

"...I don't really see..." Sez it all. I'm weary of arguing the number of angels who can dance on the head of a pin when "Define angels!" and "Define dance!" and "Define pin!" are part of the argument. And I just now went back to #4 (I should've done that earlier), and realize I'm arguing with someone who has a pretty big dog in this fight and someone who, quite understandably, has gotten his/her feelings hurt in this whole debate. I do apprecate, however, t_rey's restraint in not getting all evangelical with me. Anyway, t_rey can have the last word. Or is that Word?