next »

[aandsdean]

A much older thread:

http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php/topic,21908.0.html

HV, you may be asking too much!

[dark_globe]

When they are on their missions, Mormons proselytize but are very polite and go their merry way when you tell them you're happy with your beliefs.

Muslims don't proselytize openly at all. I don't even understand why the OP brought them into the question.

Evangelicals try to cram their religion down your throat.

[trabb]

Challenge for anyone: define what an "evangelical" is.

So, if anyone's up for it, "What is an Evangelical?"  (or a Mormon or a Muslim person too, but "evangelical" describes a more particular subgroup of Christianity while these other two are broader in their scope and perhaps less definable as a result.)

A "Muslim person" is someone who subscribes to the teachings of the Muslim faith.

A Mormon is someone who subscribes to the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints.  I must confess that as a child, whenever I heard the name of the church, I had images of people dressed up carrying around stepladders in celebration of "ladder day."

Here's the problem with defining "Evangelical" - evangelicals are not a species like dogs or cats that can be neatly categorized in some Linnaen taxonomy.  Instead, evangelicalism refers to a mindset that understands Christianity in a certain way.  As such, it's not limited to a single denomination, nor will every person who might be described as an Evangelical hold to every one of the common features that we usually describe as Evangelicalism.

Evangelicalism can be described historically, though see my point above about how Evangelicals value history.  I grew up in an Evangelical church and didn't learn the history of the movement until I undertook my own study.  Evangelicalism stems from the late-18th century revivalism of the Wesleys and others; that part of the history was well-documented in my particular church.  It's the next part that is glossed over if not hidden.  Evangelicalism developed in the 19th century primarily as a movement within the Church of England, and its increasing popularity was in part responsible for the Oxford Movement, an ultra-High Church response led by (among others) John Henry Newman. 

Over the course of the century, the Evangelicalism of the Anglican Church increasingly became linked to the teachings of various Dissent groups because they shared certain common features - a belief in the rights and abilities of individuals to read and interpret Scripture, a focus on the individual's direct experience of God, a questioning of the value of tradition, and an emphasis on the coming kingdom of God.  These groups also shared a strong anti-Catholicism.  The problem, of course, is that while certain groups might be more Evangelical than others, Evangelicalism as a way of thinking about Christianity cut across any denominational lines.

In its current usage, the term keeps the sense of those shared ideas above, but it also has acquired some extra baggage along the way:

• A political sense in which "Evangelical" carries with it the message of "right wing Republicanism" with a specific opposition to gay rights and to abortion.
• A need to proselytize that stems, I suppose, from the focus on the coming kingdom of God.
• Ironically, perhaps, a rigid sense that their version of Christianity is not only a correct one, but the correct one-interesting given that the movement began with an emphasis on individual interpretations of Scripture.
• A belief that salvation comes not through the Church but through "asking Jesus into one's heart" (to use the simple language that I was taught).  This has led to an utter abhorrence of infant baptism because the infant cannot choose to accept Jesus; it takes us instead to toddler baptism.

Ultimately, although we can point to certain shared beliefs among Evangelicals, it's impossible to define the term because it is so overdetermined; it functions simultaneously as a religious, political, and cultural term.  Thus when I hear and use the term, all of those meanings are coming into play even as I am aware that the term is trying to do so much that it really becomes pretty useless.

[humanitiesabd]

Muslims don't proselytize openly at all. I don't even understand why the OP brought them into the question.

Evangelicals try to cram their religion down your throat.

You're right - if proselytizing is the only thing that bothers people about Evangelicals, Muslims don't fit that description at all. I have to admit that the main reason I made the comparison between Evangelicals and Muslims is because it is made in the study I referenced. It also reflect my original thinking that the dislike of Evangelicals might have something to do with right-wing politics or a perception of extremism, and there are groups among both Evangelicals and Muslims that could be described that way. Both groups also have strict standards about what is right and wrong and claim a knowledge of truth, which could be offensive to some in our pluralistic society.

I have never tried to cram religion down anyone's throat. I almost never even mention my faith unless asked, for fear someone might feel uncomfortable. This applies to most Evangelicals I know. I think the Bible-thumpers are a small minority, although they make a lot of noise.

[aardvark]

Wow, none of this stuff even remotely comes up where I am.

I try my best to stay in touch with American culture-- I read loads of American books and periodicals-- but despite my best efforts I seem to get farther and farther removed from my Homeland.  Sad, really.

[kaysixteen]

Additional random thoughts:

1)Several posters here have mentioned that the prevalence evangelicals have for certain absolute religious claims not open to 'scientific inquiry' or some such term is essentially an acknowledgement of the reality that evangelicals believe in absolute truth.  Sadly, does do most everyone else, including everyone who regularly posts on these fora.  It is just WHAT is absolutely true in the eyes of evangelicals vs. most modern liberal American academics, that bothers the latter.

2)When it comes right down to it, I have to stand by my assertion that much of the hostility of Amerian academics to evangelicals, most of whom do NOT browbeat people with their faith claims, seek public conversions (when was the last time any of you had an evangelical missionary knock on your door?), simply results from class- and regional- anti-evangelical biases held by people who make up the dominant stream of American academics, biases which are still tolerable to be expressed publicly in our society.

[dark_globe]

(when was the last time any of you had an evangelical missionary knock on your door?

They come by about once every ten days. I never answer the door but they leave their propaganda on the doorstep.

In my former neighborhood my next door neighbor was one, and he constantly bothered us.

When I was a practicing Muslim one came into the mosque on a Friday during our prayers and started shouting that we were all going to Hell.

An evangelical was the director of our interfaith center on campus and had students go around campus bothering literally everyone. It created a very anti-religious attitude among the whole campus population. They ultimately had to fire him because he was so disruptive.

[aardvark]

Additional random thoughts:


2)When it comes right down to it, I have to stand by my assertion that much of the hostility of Amerian academics to evangelicals, most of whom do NOT browbeat people with their faith claims, seek public conversions (when was the last time any of you had an evangelical missionary knock on your door?), simply results from class- and regional- anti-evangelical biases held by people who make up the dominant stream of American academics, biases which are still tolerable to be expressed publicly in our society.

Judging by what actually IS expressed publicly in America, it seems that it's "still tolerable" for people in positions of authority and prominence to overgeneralize about "America-hating," "anti-Christian," "intolerant," "elitist," "snobby," and "lazy, overpaid" academics. 

Not everything can be said with impunity, and what can be said with impunity by Ann Coulter can't be (entirely) said with impunity by a presidential candidate.  But there's a wide range of things that can be expressed publicly in America... well-done, America :)

[beacon1]

Judging by what actually IS expressed publicly in America, it seems that it's "still tolerable" for people in positions of authority and prominence to overgeneralize about "America-hating," "anti-Christian," "intolerant," "elitist," "snobby," and "lazy, overpaid" academics.

Sounds like U life to me!

[jackofallchem]

   
    It is very difficult to determine why so many academics don't like 'Evangelical Christians'. 
     Almost all Protestant groups are evangelicals.  Almost all proselytize, as do the Catholics (that's why there are so many Catholics).  It is an inherent part of Christianity.   Jesus did it, the apostles did it, modern Christians do it. Essentially, it seems that the people on the board hate Christians who drop by your house and want to talk to you and these people are being called Evangelicals.
      The Muslims spread their faith as well, they just go about it differently.  If they didn't, there wouldn't be that many Muslims. Some Muslim groups do have a very effective anti-Christian Evangelical approach (kill anyone who converts to Christianity from Islam) and that may be the cause of some of the appeal that Islam has for academics (I hope I am kidding).
      The Mormons are an interesting case.  They seem to have more of everything that academics say they hate about Evangelical Christians, but academics seem to like them better.  The LDS church offers
      - young Earth creationism
      - mindless doctrine that can't be questioned
      -a very dubious history of North and South America (something the most
      fundamentalist groups in America lack)
      - every question has an answer! (be sure you don't ask twice, though)
      - rigid church and social structure (the man is in charge of his family, don't even try   
     to question that one)
       -the President and the twelve aposltes get the word directly from God.  They give
     it to the stake presidents who give it to the bishops.  If you question the bishop, you
     are questioning the word of God.
        -dark-skinned people bear the sign of unfaithfulness to God.  They are cursed
     (until 1977, when God changed his mind).
       -enforced tithing. If you don't pay your 10%, people will show up at your house
       with a bill and they won't leave until you get it somehow
       -social ostracism of non-Mormon's.  Where I lived in Utah, there were only 2 wards
       that allowed non-Mormons.  If you tried to live anywhere else, the neighbors were
       forbidden to associate with you or your children.  Also, one Saturday, all of the
       bishops in town gave a sermon against a local restaurant because the owner wasn't
       Mormon.  They told their congregation that anyone who ate their didn't love the
       LDS church and that the bishops would be monitoring the restaurant's parking lot to
       see who went there.

 A example of a religion that does not try to convert people would be Judaism.   

[dark_globe]

Some Muslim groups do have a very effective anti-Christian Evangelical approach (kill anyone who converts to Christianity from Islam) and that may be the cause of some of the appeal that Islam has for academics (I hope I am kidding).
     

Wow. What an ignorant, bigoted thing to say.

[illuminata]

IMHO, one of the aspects of fundamental religions of all stripes that frighten academics is the long ugly history of religous zealots closing the doors to the academy and intellectual freedom.

No matter the particular set of beliefs of a group of people, if those beliefs are extreme and intolerant, bad things may be afoot.

Savronorola, anyone?

[husqvarna]

Well, sure, but the thing that I think is different is that you don't have mass book burnings in American higher ed.  Those who are less tolerant tend to be cordoned off into more secluded (often not accredited) colleges where they can do what they want with blacklisted knowledge; those in evangelicalism and Mormonism that are more "mainstream" are more involved in wider academic life.

[husqvarna]

Some Muslim groups do have a very effective anti-Christian Evangelical approach (kill anyone who converts to Christianity from Islam) and that may be the cause of some of the appeal that Islam has for academics (I hope I am kidding).
     

Wow. What an ignorant, bigoted thing to say.

I wouldn't say ignorant or bigoted... perhaps just misplaced.  Certainly this goes on in some quarters, just as it does within Christianity in parts of the globe- the question is whether it is pertinent to the current discussion about American higher education.

[beacon1]

IMHO, one of the aspects of fundamental religions of all stripes that frighten academics is the long ugly history of religous zealots closing the doors to the academy and intellectual freedom.

No matter the particular set of beliefs of a group of people, if those beliefs are extreme and intolerant, bad things may be afoot.

Savronorola, anyone?

What about the long history of so-called academics closing doors to reasoned thought? It wasn't just the religious groups that strongly objected to Darwinism, heliocentrism, etc.