Historical Jesus and other Wikipedia pages

Original sin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

For other uses, see Original Sin (disambiguation).



 It has been suggested that ancestral sin be merged into this article. (Discuss) Proposed since January 2015.



 Depiction of the sin of Adam and Eve by Jan Brueghel the Elder and Pieter Paul Rubens
See also: Fate of the unlearned
Original sin, also called ancestral sin,[1] is the Christian doctrine of humanity's state of sin resulting from the fall of man,[2] stemming from Adam's rebellion in Eden. This condition has been characterized in many ways, ranging from something as insignificant as a slight deficiency, or a tendency toward sin yet without collective guilt, referred to as a "sin nature", to something as drastic as total depravity or automatic guilt of all humans through collective guilt.[3]
The concept of original sin was first alluded to in the 2nd century by Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons in his controversy with certain dualist Gnostics. Other church fathers such as Augustine also developed the doctrine,[2] seeing it as based on the New Testament teaching of Paul the Apostle (Romans 5:12–21 and 1 Corinthians 15:22) and the Old Testament verse of Psalm 51:5.[4][5][6][7][8] Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose and Ambrosiaster considered that humanity shares in Adam's sin, transmitted by human generation. Augustine's formulation of original sin was popular among Protestant reformers, such as Martin Luther and John Calvin, who equated original sin with concupiscence, affirming that it persisted even after baptism and completely destroyed freedom.[2] The Jansenist movement, which the Catholic Church declared to be heretical, also maintained that original sin destroyed freedom of will.[9]
Jewish theologians are divided in regard to the cause of what is called "original sin". Some teach that it was due to Adam's yielding to temptation in eating of the forbidden fruit and has been inherited by his descendants; the majority, however, do not hold Adam responsible for the sins of humanity,[10] teaching that, in Genesis 8:21 and 6:5-8, God recognized that Adam's sins are his alone. However, Adam is recognized by some as having brought death into the world by his disobedience. Because of his sin, his descendants will live a mortal life, which will end in death of their bodies.[11] The doctrine of "inherited sin" is not found in most of mainstream Judaism. Although some in Orthodox Judaism place blame on Adam for overall corruption of the world, and though there were some Jewish teachers in Talmudic times who believed that death was a punishment brought upon humanity on account of Adam's sin, that is not the dominant view in most of Judaism today. Modern Judaism generally teaches that humans are born sin-free and untainted, and choose to sin later and bring suffering to themselves.[12][13] The concept of inherited sin is also not found in any real form in Islam.[14][15] Some interpretations of original sin are rejected by other Christian theologies.



Contents  [hide]
1 History of the doctrine 1.1 Augustine
1.2 Cassian
1.3 Church reaction
1.4 Protestant reformation
1.5 Council of Trent
2 Denominational views 2.1 Roman Catholicism
2.2 Eastern Orthodoxy
2.3 Classical Anglicanism
2.4 Methodism
2.5 Seventh-day Adventism
2.6 Jehovah's Witnesses
2.7 Mormonism
2.8 Swedenborgianism
3 Islam
4 Criticism
5 See also
6 References
7 Bibliography
8 External links

History of the doctrine[edit]



Michelangelo's painting of the sin of Adam and Eve from the Sistine Chapel ceiling
The formalized doctrine of original sin was first developed in the 2nd-century by Irenaeus, the Bishop of Lyons, in his struggle against Gnosticism.[2] Irenaeus contrasted their doctrine with the view that the Fall was a step in the wrong direction by Adam, with whom, Irenaeus believed, his descendants had some solidarity or identity.[16] Irenaeus believed that Adam's sin had grave consequences for humanity, that it is the source of human sinfulness, mortality and enslavement to sin, and that all human beings participate in his sin and share his guilt.[17]
The Greek Fathers emphasized the cosmic dimension of the Fall, namely that since Adam human beings are born into a fallen world, but held fast to belief that man, though fallen, is free.[2] They thus did not teach that human beings are deprived of free will and involved in total depravity, which is one understanding of original sin.[18][19] During this period the doctrines of human depravity and the inherently sinful nature of human flesh were taught by Gnostics, and orthodox Christian writers took great pains to counter them.[20][21] Christian Apologists insisted that God's future judgment of humanity implied humanity must have the ability to live righteously.[22][23]
Augustine[edit]



Augustine of Hippo wrote that original sin is transmitted by concupiscence and enfeebles freedom of the will without destroying it.[2]
Augustine of Hippo (354–430) taught that Adam's sin[24] is transmitted by concupiscence, or "hurtful desire",[25][26] resulting in humanity becoming a massa damnata (mass of perdition, condemned crowd), with much enfeebled, though not destroyed, freedom of will.[2] When Adam sinned, human nature was thenceforth transformed. Adam and Eve, via sexual reproduction, recreated human nature. Their descendants now live in sin, in the form of concupiscence, a term Augustine used in a metaphysical, not a psychological sense.[27] Augustine insisted that concupiscence was not a being but a bad quality, the privation of good or a wound.[28] He admitted that sexual concupiscence (libido) might have been present in the perfect human nature in paradise, and that only later it became disobedient to human will as a result of the first couple's disobedience to God's will in the original sin.[29] In Augustine's view (termed "Realism"), all of humanity was really present in Adam when he sinned, and therefore all have sinned. Original sin, according to Augustine, consists of the guilt of Adam which all humans inherit. As sinners, humans are utterly depraved in nature, lack the freedom to do good, and cannot respond to the will of God without divine grace. Grace is irresistible, results in conversion, and leads to perseverance.[30]
Augustine articulated his explanation in reaction to Pelagianism, which insisted that humans have of themselves, without the necessary help of God's grace, the ability to lead a morally good life, and thus denied both the importance of baptism and the teaching that God is the giver of all that is good. Pelagius claimed that the influence of Adam on other humans was merely that of bad example. Augustine held that the effects of Adam's sin are transmitted to his descendants not by example but by the very fact of generation from that ancestor. A wounded nature comes to the soul and body of the new person from his/her parents, who experience libido (or concupiscence). Augustine's view was that human procreation was the way the transmission was being effected. He did not blame, however, the sexual passion itself, but the spiritual concupiscence present in human nature, soul and body, even after baptismal regeneration.[31] Christian parents transmit their wounded nature to children, because they give them birth, not the "re-birth".[32] Augustine used Ciceronian Stoic concept of passions, to interpret St. Paul's doctrine of universal sin and redemption. In that view, also sexual desire itself as well as other bodily passions were consequence of the original sin, in which pure affections were wounded by vice and became disobedient to human reason and will. As long as they carry a threat to the dominion of reason over the soul they constitute moral evil, but since they do not presuppose consent, one cannot call them sins. Humanity will be liberated from passions, and pure affections will be restored only when all sin has been washed away and ended, that is in the resurrection of the dead.[33][34]
Augustine believed that the only definitive destinations of souls are heaven and hell. He concluded that unbaptized infants go to hell as a consequence of original sin.[35][36] The Latin Church Fathers who followed Augustine adopted his position, which became a point of reference for Latin theologians in the Middle Ages.[37] In the later medieval period, some theologians continued to hold Augustine's view, others held that unbaptized infants suffered no pain at all: unaware of being deprived of the beatific vision, they enjoyed a state of natural, not supernatural happiness. Starting around 1300, unbaptized infants were often said to inhabit the "limbo of infants".[38] The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1261 declares: "As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: 'Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,'[39] allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism." But the theory of Limbo, while it "never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium ... remains ... a possible theological hypothesis".[40]
Cassian[edit]
In the works of John Cassian (ca. 360 – 435), Conference XIII recounts how the wise monk Chaeremon, of whom he is writing, responded to puzzlement caused by his own statement that "man even though he strive with all his might for a good result, yet cannot become master of what is good unless he has acquired it simply by the gift of Divine bounty and not by the efforts of his own toil" (chapter 1). In chapter 11, Cassian presents Chaeremon as speaking of the cases of Paul the persecutor and Matthew the publican as difficulties for those who say "the beginning of free will is in our own power", and the cases of Zaccheus and the good thief on the cross as difficulties for those who say "the beginning of our free will is always due to the inspiration of the grace of God", and as concluding: "These two then; viz., the grace of God and free will seem opposed to each other, but really are in harmony, and we gather from the system of goodness that we ought to have both alike, lest if we withdraw one of them from man, we may seem to have broken the rule of the Church's faith: for when God sees us inclined to will what is good, He meets, guides, and strengthens us: for 'At the voice of thy cry, as soon as He shall hear, He will answer thee'; and: 'Call upon Me', He says, 'in the day of tribulation and I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify Me'. And again, if He finds that we are unwilling or have grown cold, He stirs our hearts with salutary exhortations, by which a good will is either renewed or formed in us."[41]
Cassian did not accept the idea of total depravity, on which Martin Luther was to insist.[42] He taught that human nature is fallen or depraved, but not totally. Augustine Casiday states that, at the same time, Cassian "baldly asserts that God's grace, not human free will, is responsible for 'everything which pertains to salvation' – even faith."[43] Cassian pointed out that people still have moral freedom and one has the option to choose to follow God. Colm Luibhéid says that, according to Cassian, there are cases where the soul makes the first little turn,[44] but in Cassian's view, according to Casiday, any sparks of goodwill that may exist, not directly caused by God, are totally inadequate and only direct divine intervention ensures spiritual progress.[45] and Lauren Pristas says that "for Cassian, salvation is, from beginning to end, the effect of God's grace."[46]
Church reaction[edit]
Opposition to Augustine's ideas about original sin, which he had developed in reaction to Pelagianism, arose rapidly.[47] After a long and bitter struggle the general principles of Augustine's teaching were confirmed within Western Christianity by many councils, especially the Second Council of Orange in 529.[2] However, while the Church condemned Pelagius, it did not endorse Augustine entirely[48] and, while Augustine's authority was accepted, he was interpreted in the light of writers such as Cassian.[49] Some of the followers of Augustine identified original sin with concupiscence[50] in the psychological sense, but this identification was challenged by the 11th-century Saint Anselm of Canterbury, who defined original sin as "privation of the righteousness that every man ought to possess", thus separating it from concupiscence. In the 12th century the identification of original sin with concupiscence was supported by Peter Lombard and others, but was rejected by the leading theologians in the next century, chief of whom was Thomas Aquinas. He distinguished the supernatural gifts of Adam before the Fall from what was merely natural, and said that it was the former that were lost, privileges that enabled man to keep his inferior powers in submission to reason and directed to his supernatural end. Even after the fall, man thus kept his natural abilities of reason, will and passions. Rigorous Augustine-inspired views persisted among the Franciscans, though the most prominent Franciscan theologians, such as Duns Scotus and William of Ockham, eliminated the element of concupiscence.
Protestant reformation[edit]
Martin Luther (1483–1546) asserted that humans inherit Adamic guilt and are in a state of sin from the moment of conception. The second article in Lutheranism's Augsburg Confession presents its doctrine of original sin in summary form:

It is also taught among us that since the fall of Adam all men who are born according to the course of nature are conceived and born in sin. That is, all men are full of evil lust and inclinations from their mothers' wombs and are unable by nature to have true fear of God and true faith in God. Moreover, this inborn sickness and hereditary sin is truly sin and condemns to the eternal wrath of God all those who are not born again through Baptism and the Holy Spirit. Rejected in this connection are the Pelagians and others who deny that original sin is sin, for they hold that natural man is made righteous by his own powers, thus disparaging the sufferings and merit of Christ.[51]
Luther, however, also agreed with the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception (that Mary was conceived free from original sin) by saying:

[Mary] is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin. God's grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. God is with her, meaning that all she did or left undone is divine and the action of God in her. Moreover, God guarded and protected her from all that might be hurtful to her.[52]
Protestant Reformer John Calvin (1509–1564) developed a systematic theology of Augustinian Protestantism by interpretation of Augustine of Hippo's notion of original sin. Calvin believed that humans inherit Adamic guilt and are in a state of sin from the moment of conception. This inherently sinful nature (the basis for the Calvinistic doctrine of "total depravity") results in a complete alienation from God and the total inability of humans to achieve reconciliation with God based on their own abilities. Not only do individuals inherit a sinful nature due to Adam's fall, but since he was the federal head and representative of the human race, all whom he represented inherit the guilt of his sin by imputation. Redemption by Jesus Christ is the only remedy.
John Calvin defined original sin in his Institutes of the Christian Religion as follows:

Original sin, therefore, seems to be a hereditary depravity and corruption of our nature, diffused into all parts of the soul, which first makes us liable to God's wrath, then also brings forth in us those works which Scripture calls "works of the flesh" (Gal 5:19). And that is properly what Paul often calls sin. The works that come forth from it – such as adulteries, fornications, thefts, hatreds, murders, carousings – he accordingly calls "fruits of sin" (Gal 5:19–21), although they are also commonly called "sins" in Scripture, and even by Paul himself.[53]
Council of Trent[edit]
The Council of Trent (1545–1563), while not pronouncing on points disputed among Catholic theologians, condemned the teaching that in baptism the whole of what belongs to the essence of sin is not taken away, but is only cancelled or not imputed, and declared the concupiscence that remains after baptism not truly and properly "sin" in the baptized, but only to be called sin in the sense that it is of sin and inclines to sin.[54]
In 1567, soon after the close of the Council of Trent, Pope Pius V went beyond Trent by sanctioning Aquinas's distinction between nature and supernature in Adam's state before the Fall, condemned the identification of original sin with concupiscence, and approved the view that the unbaptized could have right use of will.[2]
Denominational views[edit]



 Illuminated parchment, Spain, circa AD 950–955, depicting the Fall of Man, cause of original sin
Roman Catholicism[edit]
The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all humans.
Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called "original sin".
As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin (this inclination is called "concupiscence").[55]
The Catholic Church teaches that every human person born on this earth is made in the image of God.[56][57] Within man "is both the powerful surge toward the good because we are made in the image of God, and the darker impulses toward evil because of the effects of Original Sin."[58] Furthermore, it explicitly denies that we inherit guilt from anyone, maintaining that instead we inherit our fallen nature. In this it differs from the Calvinism/Protestant position that each person actually inherits Adam's guilt, and teaches instead that "original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants ... but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man".[59] "In other words, human beings do not bear any 'original guilt' from Adam and Eve's particular sin."[60]
The Church has always held baptism to be "for the remission of sins", and, as mentioned in Catechism of the Catholic Church, 403, infants too have traditionally been baptized, though not guilty of any actual personal sin. The sin that through baptism was remitted for them could only be original sin, with which they were connected by the very fact of being a human. The first comprehensive theological explanation of this practice of baptizing infants, guilty of no actual personal sin, was given by Saint Augustine of Hippo, not all of whose ideas on original sin have been adopted by the Catholic Church. Indeed, the Church has condemned the interpretation of some of his ideas by certain leaders of the Protestant Reformation.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains that in "yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state ... original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed"—a state and not an act" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 404). This "state of deprivation of the original holiness and justice ... transmitted to the descendants of Adam along with human nature" (Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 76) involves no personal responsibility or personal guilt on their part (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 405). Personal responsibility and guilt were Adam's, who because of his sin, was unable to pass on to his descendants a human nature with the holiness with which it would otherwise have been endowed, in this way implicating them in his sin. The doctrine of original sin thus does not impute the sin of the father to his children, but merely states that they inherit from him a "human nature deprived of original holiness and justice", which is "transmitted by propagation to all mankind".[61]
In the theology of the Catholic Church, original sin is regarded as the general condition of sinfulness, that is (the absence of holiness and perfect charity) into which humans are born, distinct from the actual sins that a person commits. This teaching explicitly states that "original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants".[59] In other words, human beings do not bear any "original guilt" from Adam's particular sin, which is his alone. The prevailing view, also held in Eastern Orthodoxy, is that human beings bear no guilt for the sin of Adam. The Catholic Church teaches: "By our first parents' sin, the devil has acquired a certain domination over man, even though man remains free."[62]
The Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary is that Mary was conceived free from original sin: "the most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin."[63] The doctrine sees her as an exception to the general rule that human beings are not immune from the reality of original sin.
Eastern Orthodoxy[edit]
The Eastern Orthodox's version of original sin is the view that sin originates with the Devil, "for the devil sinneth from the beginning. (1 John iii. 8)".[64] They acknowledge that the introduction of ancestral sin[65][better source needed] into the human race affected the subsequent environment for humanity (see also traducianism). However, they never accepted Augustine of Hippo's notions of original sin and hereditary guilt.[66][better source needed]
Orthodox Churches accept the teachings of John Cassian, as do Catholic Churches eastern and western,[42] in rejecting the doctrine of Total Depravity, by teaching that human nature is "fallen", that is, depraved, but not totally. Augustine Casiday states that Cassian "baldly asserts that God's grace, not human free will, is responsible for 'everything which pertains to salvation' – even faith."[43] Cassian points out that people still have moral freedom and one has the option to choose to follow God. Colm Luibhéid says that, according to Cassian, there are cases where the soul makes the first little turn,[44] while Augustine Casiday says that, in Cassian's view, any sparks of goodwill that may exist, not directly caused by God, are totally inadequate and only direct divine intervention ensures spiritual progress.[45] and Lauren Pristas says that "for Cassian, salvation is, from beginning to end, the effect of God's grace."[46]
Eastern Orthodoxy accepts the doctrine of ancestral sin: "Original sin is hereditary. It did not remain only Adam and Eve's. As life passes from them to all of their descendants, so does original sin."[67] "As from an infected source there naturally flows an infected stream, so from a father infected with sin, and consequently mortal, there naturally proceeds a posterity infected like him with sin, and like him mortal."[68]
The Orthodox Church in America makes clear the distinction between "fallen nature" and "fallen man" and this is affirmed in the early teaching of the Church whose role it is to act as the catalyst that leads to true or inner redemption. Every human person born on this earth bears the image of God undistorted within themselves.[69] In the Orthodox Christian understanding, they explicitly deny that humanity inherited guilt from anyone. Rather, they maintain that we inherit our fallen nature. While humanity does bear the consequences of the original, or first, sin, humanity does not bear the personal guilt associated with this sin. Adam and Eve are guilty of their willful action; we bear the consequences, chief of which is death."[70]
On whether Mary actually ever sinned, or was stained by original sin, the view of the Eastern Orthodox Church varies, though there is general agreement that she was cleansed from sin at the Annunciation.[71][72]
Classical Anglicanism[edit]
The original formularies of the Church of England also continue in the Reformation understanding of Original Sin. In the Thirty-Nine Articles, Article IX "Of Original or Birth-sin" states:

Original Sin standeth not in the following of Adam, (as the Pelagians do vainly talk;) but it is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every man, that naturally is ingendered of the offspring of Adam; whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the spirit; and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God's wrath and damnation. And this infection of nature doth remain, yea in them that are regenerated; whereby the lust of the flesh, called in the Greek, Φρονεμα σαρκος, which some do expound the wisdom, some sensuality, some the affection, some the desire, of the flesh, is not subject to the Law of God. And although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized, yet the Apostle doth confess, that concupiscence and lust hath of itself the nature of sin.[73]
However, more recent doctrinal statements (e.g. the 1938 report Doctrine in the Church of England) permit a greater variety of understandings of this doctrine. The 1938 report summarizes:

Man is by nature capable of communion with God, and only through such communion can he become what he was created to be. "Original sin" stands for the fact that from a time apparently prior to any responsible act of choice man is lacking in this communion, and if left to his own resources and to the influence of his natural environment cannot attain to his destiny as a child of God.[74]
Methodism[edit]
The Methodist Church upholds Article VII in the Articles of Religion in the Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church:

Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam (as the Pelagians do vainly talk), but it is the corruption of the nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and of his own nature inclined to evil, and that continually.[75]
Seventh-day Adventism[edit]
Seventh-day Adventists believe that humans are inherently sinful due to the fall of Adam,[76] but they do not totally accept the Augustinian/Calvinistic understanding of original sin, taught in terms of original guilt, but hold more to what could be termed the "total depravity" tradition.[77] Seventh-day Adventists have historically preached a doctrine of inherited weakness, but not a doctrine of inherited guilt.[78] According to Augustine and Calvin, humanity inherits not only Adam's depraved nature but also the actual guilt of his transgression, and Adventists look more toward the Wesleyan model.[79]
In part, the Adventist position on original sin reads:

The nature of the penalty for original sin, i.e., Adam's sin, is to be seen as literal, physical, temporal, or actual death – the opposite of life, i.e., the cessation of being. By no stretch of the scriptural facts can death be spiritualised as depravity. God did not punish Adam by making him a sinner. That was Adam’s own doing. All die the first death because of Adam’s sin regardless of their moral character – children included.[79]
Early Adventists Pioneers (such as George Storrs and Uriah Smith) tended to de-emphasise the morally corrupt nature inherited from Adam, while stressing the importance of actual, personal sins committed by the individual. They thought of the "sinful nature" in terms of physical mortality rather than moral depravity.[79] Traditionally, Adventists look at sin in terms of willful transgressions, and that Christ triumphed over sin. Adventism believes that Christ is both our Substitute and our Example.[80] They base their belief on texts such as "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law." (1 John 3:4)[81]
Though believing in the concept of inherited sin from Adam, there is no dogmatic Adventist position on original sin. Related articles dealing with the subject are publicly available on the General Conference of the Seventh-day Adventist Church’s official website on theological doctrine, the Biblical Research Institute.[82]
Jehovah's Witnesses[edit]
According to Jehovah's Witnesses, all humans are born sinners and inherit sin, corruption, and death from Adam. They believe Adam was originally created perfect and sinless, but with free will; the Devil, who was originally a perfect angel, but later developed feelings of pride and self-importance, seduced Eve, and then through her, persuaded Adam to disobey God, and to obey the Devil instead, rebelling against God's sovereignty, making themselves sinners and transmitting a sinful nature to their offspring.[83][84] Instead of destroying the Devil right away, as well as destroying the disobedient couple, God decided to test the loyalty of the rest of humankind, and to prove to that man cannot be independent of God successfully, that man is lost without God's laws and standards, and can never bring peace to the earth, and that Satan was a deceiver, murderer, and liar.[85]
Witnesses believe that all men possess "inherited sin" from the "one man" Adam, and that man is born corrupt, and dies because of inherited sin and imperfection, that inherited sin is the reason and cause for sickness and suffering, made worse by the Devil's wicked influence. They believe Jesus is the "second Adam", being the sinless Son of God and the Messiah, and that he came to undo Adamic sin; and that salvation and everlasting life can only be obtained through faith and obedience to the second Adam.[83][84][85][86][87][88] They believe that "sin" is "missing the mark" of God's standard of perfection, and that everyone is born a sinner, due to being the offspring of sinner Adam.[89]
Mormonism[edit]
The Book of Mormon, a text sacred to Mormonism, contains an original sin doctrine in which humanity inherited a fallen and depraved nature from Adam.[90] Young children, however, are thought to be held innocent until an age of accountability.[91] As Mormon doctrines developed, founder Joseph Smith ultimately taught that humans had an essentially godlike nature, and were not only holy in a premortal state, but could progress eternally to become like God.[92] He wrote as an Article of Faith, "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression."[93] Later Mormons took this creed as a rejection of the doctrine of original sin and any notion of inherited sinfulness.[92] Thus, while modern Mormons will agree that the fall of Adam brought consequences to the world, including the possibility of sin, they generally reject the idea that any culpability is automatically transmitted to Adam and Eve's offspring.[94]
Swedenborgianism[edit]
In Swedenborgianism, exegesis of the first 11 chapters of Genesis from The First Church, has a view that Adam is not an individual person. Rather, he is a symbolic representation of the "Most Ancient Church", having a more direct contact with heaven than all other successive churches.[95] Swedenborg's view of original sin is referred to as hereditary evil, which passes from generation to generation.[96] It cannot be completely abolished by an individual man, but can be tempered when someone reforms their own life,[97] and are thus held accountable only for their own sins.[98]
Islam[edit]
The concept of original sin is not recognized in Islam. Muslims believe that Adam and Eve were forgiven by God, and use the following Koranic suras to support this belief:
"O Adam, dwell with your wife in the Garden and enjoy as you wish but approach not this tree or you run into harm and transgression. Then Satan whispered to them in order to reveal to them their shame that was hidden from them and he said: 'Your Lord only forbade you this tree lest you become angels or such beings as live forever.' And he swore to them both that he was their sincere adviser. So by deceit he brought them to their fall: when they tasted the tree their shame became manifest to them and they began to sew together the leaves of the Garden over their bodies. And their Lord called unto them: 'Did I not forbid you that tree and tell you that Satan was your avowed enemy?'" Sūrat al-Aʻrāf:19–22.
"They said: 'Our Lord, we have wronged ourselves souls. If You forgive us not and bestow not upon us Your mercy, we shall certainly be of the losers' " Surat al-Aʻraf :23
".. Thus did Adam disobey his Lord, so he went astray. Then his Lord chose him, and turned to him with forgiveness, and gave him guidance." Surat Ṭā Hāʼ:121–122
"(ِAllah SWT) said: 'Get down (from the Garden), one of you an enemy to the other [i.e. Adam, Eve, and Satan]. On earth will be a dwelling-place for you and an enjoyment – for a short time'. He (God) said: 'Therein you shall live, and therein you shall die, and from it you shall be brought out [i.e. resurrected].' " Surat al-Aʻraf:24–25.
"That no burdened person (with sins) shall bear the burden (sins) of another. And that man can have nothing but what he does (of good and bad). And that his deeds will be seen, Then he will be recompensed with a full and the best [fair] recompense." Surat an-Najm:38–41
Criticism[edit]
Historian Robin Lane Fox argues that the foundation of the doctrine of original sin, that was accepted by the Church, was based on a mis-translation of Paul the Apostle's Epistle to the Romans (Romans 5:12–21) by Augustine, in his "On the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin".[99]
In an 8-page contribution, I.J.J. Spangenberg has stated:

Darwin,[100][101] did not set out to undermine the grand narrative of Christianity, but his theory of evolution through natural selection led to conclusions that were diametrically opposite to those that Christians traditionally believed and proclaimed. The research carried out under the paradigm of evolution brought to light that Augustine's convictions on "original sin" and death could no longer be held. However, conservative theologians and church members are reluctant to acknowledge this (Bowler 2007:225).[102] Nevertheless, a change in traditional theology is a prerequisite for any meaningful dialogue between religion and science.[103]
That what Spangenberg calls "traditional theology" is not the only accepted contemporary theology is evident from the writings of Reinhold Niebuhr[104] and others reviewed in Jerry D. Korsmeyer's Evolution and Eden[105] and Tatha Wiley's Original Sin: Origins, Developments, Contemporary Meanings,[106] and from the fact that, with regard to official Catholic Church doctrine on original sin, the authoritative Catechism of the Catholic Church "explicitly acknowledges that the account of the fall in Genesis 2 and 3 uses figurative language".[107] Difficulty for what Spangenberg calls the dialogue between religion and science arises, in the view of Korsmeyer, from a confrontation between a few popularizers of scientific knowledge and "religious fundamentalists who consider that their religious knowledge includes scientific conclusions drawn from the Bible".[108]
See also[edit]

Portal icon Christianity portal
Portal icon Religion portal
Actual sin
Ancestral sin
Christian views on sin
Deadly sin
Divine grace
Eternal sin (aka unforgivable or unpardonable sin)
Fall of man
Hamartiology
Immaculate Conception
Incurvatus in se
Internal sin
Justification (theology)
Mortal sin
Pandora's box
Prevenient grace
Sin
The Antichrist (book)
Theodicy and the Bible#The Fall and freedom of the will
Total depravity
Venial sin
Problem of evil
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Examples: Alexander Golitzin, On the Mystical Life by Saint Symeon (St Vladimir's Seminary Press 1995 ISBN 978-0-88141-144-7), p.119
Adam L. Tate, Conservatism and Southern Intellectuals, 1789–1861 (University of Missouri Press 2005 ISBN 978-0-8262-1567-3), p. 190
Marcelle Bartolo-Abel, God's Gift to Humanity (Apostolate–The Divine Heart 2011 ISBN 978-0-9833480-1-6), p. 32
Ann Hassan, Annotations to Geoffrey Hill's Speech! Speech! (Punctum Books 2012 ISBN 978-1-4681-2984-7, p. 62
2.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i ODCC 2005, p. Original sin.
3.Jump up ^ Brodd, Jefferey (2003). World Religions. Winona, MN: Saint Mary's Press. ISBN 978-0-88489-725-5.
4.Jump up ^ Peter Nathan - The Original View of Original Sin - Retrieved 14 October 2013.
5.Jump up ^ Phil Porvaznik - Original Sin Explained and Defended Evangelical Catholic Apologetics - Retrieved 14 October 2013.
6.Jump up ^ Preamble and Articles of Faith - V. Sin, Original and Personal - Church of the Nazarene. Retrieved 13 October 2013.
7.Jump up ^ Are Babies Born with Sin? - Topical Bible Studies. Retrieved 13 October 2013.
8.Jump up ^ Original Sin - Psalm 51:5 - Catholic News Agency. Retrieved 13 October 2013.
9.Jump up ^ "Jansenius and Jansenism" in The Catholic Encyclopedia
10.Jump up ^ SIN: – Jewish Encyclopedia. Retrieved 12 July 2013.
11.Jump up ^ Shaul Magid (2008). From Metaphysics to Midrash: Myth, History, and the Interpretation of Scripture in Lurianic Kabbala. Indiana University Press. p. 238. Retrieved 9 February 2014.
12.Jump up ^ Judaism’s Rejection Of Original Sin – Kolatch, Alfred J., The Jewish Book of Why/The Second Jewish Book of Why. NY: Jonathan David Publishers, 1989.
13.Jump up ^ Judaism's Rejection Of Original Sin While there were some Jewish teachers in Talmudic times who believed that death was a punishment brought upon humanity on account of Adam's sin, the dominant view was that man sins because he is not a perfect being, and not, as Christianity teaches, because he is inherently sinful.
14.Jump up ^ http://www.religionfacts.com/islam/beliefs/human.htm/
15.Jump up ^ http://www.religionfacts.com/islam/beliefs/human.htm
16.Jump up ^ J. N. D. Kelly Early Christian Doctrines (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1978) p. 171, referred to in Daniel L. Akin, A Theology for the Church, p. 433
17.Jump up ^ Daniel L. Akin, A Theology for the Church (B&H Publishing 2007 ISBN 978-0-8054-2640-3), p. 433
18.Jump up ^ A. J. Wallace, R. D. Rusk, Moral Transformation: The Original Christian Paradigm of Salvation (New Zealand: Bridgehead, 2011), pp. 255 & 258. ISBN 978-1-4563-8980-2
19.Jump up ^ H. E. W. Turner, The Patristic Doctrine of the Redemption: A Study of the Development of Doctrine During the First Five Centuries (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2004) p. 71
20.Jump up ^ Bernhard Lohse, A Short History of Christian Doctrine (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1966), p. 104
21.Jump up ^ A. J. Wallace, R. D. Rusk, Moral Transformation: The Original Christian Paradigm of Salvation (New Zealand: Bridgehead, 2011), p. 258. ISBN 978-1-4563-8980-2
22.Jump up ^ Arthur C. McGiffert, A History of Christian Thought: Volume 1, Early and Eastern (New York; London: C. Scribner's sons, 1932), p. 101
23.Jump up ^ A. J. Wallace, R. D. Rusk, Moral Transformation: The Original Christian Paradigm of Salvation (New Zealand: Bridgehead, 2011), pp. 258–259. ISBN 978-1-4563-8980-2
24.Jump up ^ Augustine taught that Adam's sin was both an act of foolishness (insipientia) and of pride and disobedience to God of Adam and Eve. He thought it was a most subtle job to discern what came first: self-centeredness or failure in seeing truth. Augustine wrote to Julian of Eclanum: Sed si disputatione subtilissima et elimatissima opus est, ut sciamus utrum primos homines insipientia superbos, an insipientes superbia fecerit (Contra Julianum, V, 4.18; PL 44, 795). This particular sin would not have taken place if Satan had not sown into their senses "the root of evil" (radix Mali): Nisi radicem mali humanus tunc reciperet sensus (Contra Julianum, I, 9.42; PL 44, 670)
25.Jump up ^ ORIGINAL SIN- Biblical Apologetic Studies - Retrieved 17 May 2014. Augustine of Hippo (354–430) taught that Adam's sin is transmitted by concupiscence, or "hurtful desire", sexual desire and all sensual feelings resulting in humanity becoming a massa damnata (mass of perdition, condemned crowd), with much enfeebled, though not destroyed, freedom of will.
26.Jump up ^ William Nicholson - A Plain But Full Exposition of the Catechism of the Church of England... (Google eBook) page 118. Retrieved 17 May 2014.
27.Jump up ^ Thomas Aquinas explained Augustine's doctrine pointing out that the libido (concupiscence), which makes the original sin pass from parents to children, is not a libido actualis, i.e. sexual lust, but libido habitualis, i.e. a wound of the whole of human nature: Libido quae transmittit peccatum originale in prolem, non est libido actualis, quia dato quod virtute divina concederetur alicui quod nullam inordinatam libidinem in actu generationis sentiret, adhuc transmitteret in prolem originale peccatum. Sed libido illa est intelligenda habitualiter, secundum quod appetitus sensitivus non continetur sub ratione vinculo originalis iustitiae. Et talis libido in omnibus est aequalis (STh Iª–IIae q. 82 a. 4 ad 3).
28.Jump up ^ Non substantialiter manere concupiscentiam, sicut corpus aliquod aut spiritum; sed esse affectionem quamdam malae qualitatis, sicut est languor. (De nuptiis et concupiscentia, I, 25. 28; PL 44, 430; cf. Contra Julianum, VI, 18.53; PL 44, 854; ibid. VI, 19.58; PL 44, 857; ibid., II, 10.33; PL 44, 697; Contra Secundinum Manichaeum, 15; PL 42, 590.
29.Jump up ^ Augustine wrote to Julian of Eclanum: Quis enim negat futurum fuisse concubitum, etiamsi peccatum non praecessisset? Sed futurus fuerat, sicut aliis membris, ita etiam genitalibus voluntate motis, non libidine concitatis; aut certe etiam ipsa libidine – ut non vos de illa nimium contristemus – non qualis nunc est, sed ad nutum voluntarium serviente (Contra Julianum, IV. 11. 57; PL 44, 766). See also his late work: Contra secundam Iuliani responsionem imperfectum opus, II, 42; PL 45,1160; ibid. II, 45; PL 45,1161; ibid., VI, 22; PL 45, 1550–1551. Cf.Schmitt, É. (1983). Le mariage chrétien dans l'oeuvre de Saint Augustin. Une théologie baptismale de la vie conjugale. Études Augustiniennes. Paris. p. 104.
30.Jump up ^ Justo L. Gonzalez (1970–1975). A History of Christian Thought: Volume 2 (From Augustine to the eve of the Reformation). Abingdon Press.
31.Jump up ^ Sexual desire is, according to bishop of Hippo, only one – though the strongest – of many physical realisations of that spiritual libido: Cum igitur sint multarum libidines rerum, tamen, cum libido dicitur neque cuius rei libido sit additur, non fere assolet animo occurrere nisi illa, qua obscenae partes corporis excitantur. Haec autem sibi non solum totum corpus nec solum extrinsecus, verum etiam intrinsecus vindicat totumque commovet hominem animi simul affectu cum carnis appetitu coniuncto atque permixto, ut ea voluptas sequatur, qua maior in corporis voluptatibus nulla est; ita ut momento ipso temporis, quo ad eius pervenitur extremum, paene omnis acies et quasi vigilia cogitationis obruatur. (De civitate Dei, XIV, 16; CCL 48, 438–439 [1–10]). See also: Schmitt, É. (1983). Le mariage chrétien dans l'oeuvre de Saint Augustin. Une théologie baptismale de la vie conjugale. Études Augustiniennes. Paris. p. 97.. See also Augustine's: De continentia, 8.21; PL 40, 363; Contra Iulianum VI, 19.60; PL 44, 859; ibid. IV, 14.65, z.2, s. 62; PL 44, 770; De Trinitate, XII, 9. 14; CCL 50, 368 [verse: IX 1–8]; De Genesi contra Manicheos, II, 9.12, s. 60 ; CSEL 91, 133 [v. 31–35]).
32.Jump up ^ Regeneratus quippe non regenerat filios carnis, sed generat; ac per hoc in eos non quod regeneratus, sed quod generatus est, trajicit. (De gratia Christi et de peccato originali, II, 40.45; CSEL 42, 202[23–25]; PL 44, 407.
33.Jump up ^ Cf. De civitate Dei, ch. IX and XIV; On the Gospel of John, LX (Christ's feelings at the death of Lazarus, Jn 11)
34.Jump up ^ J. Brachtendorf (1997). "Cicero and Augustine on the Passions". p. 307. hdl:2042/23075.
35.Jump up ^ "Infernum", literally "underworld," later identified as limbo.
36.Jump up ^ "Limbo: Past Catholic statements on the fate of unbaptized infants, etc. who have died"[1]
37.Jump up ^ Study by International Theological Commission (19 January 2007), The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized, 19–21
38.Jump up ^ Study by International Theological Commission (19 January 2007), The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized, 22–25
39.Jump up ^ Mark 10:14; cf. 1 Tim 2:4
40.Jump up ^ Study by International Theological Commission (19 January 2007), The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized, secondary preliminary paragraph; cf. paragraph 41.
41.Jump up ^ Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/John Cassian/Conferences of John Cassian, Part II/Conference XIII/Chapter 11 s:Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/John Cassian/Conferences of John Cassian, Part II/Conference XIII/Chapter 11
42.^ Jump up to: a b Geoffrey Rudolph Elton, Reformation Europe (Wiley-Blackwell 1999 ISBN 978-0-631-21384-0), p. 136
43.^ Jump up to: a b Augustine Casiday, Tradition and Theology in St John Cassian (Oxford University Press 2007 ISBN 0-19-929718-5), p. 103
44.^ Jump up to: a b Conferences By John Cassian, Colm Luibhéid
45.^ Jump up to: a b STUDIA HISTORIAE ECCLESIASTICAE May/Mei 2009 Volume XXXV No/Nr 1
46.^ Jump up to: a b Lauren Pristas, The Theological Anthropology of John Cassian
47.Jump up ^ A. J. Wallace, R. D. Rusk, Moral Transformation: The Original Christian Paradigm of Salvation (New Zealand: Bridgehead, 2011), pp. 284–285. ISBN 978-1-4563-8980-2
48.Jump up ^ Edwin Zackrison, In the Loins of Adam (iUniverse 2004 ISBN 9780595307166), p. 73
49.Jump up ^ Justo L. González, A History of Christian Thought (Abingdon Press 2010 ISBN 9781426721915), vol. 2, p. 58
50.Jump up ^ In Catholic theology, the meaning of the word "concupiscence" is the movement of the sensitive appetite contrary to the operation of the human reason. The apostle St Paul identifies it with the rebellion of the 'flesh' against the 'spirit' Concupiscence stems from the disobedience of the first sin. It unsettles man's moral faculties and, without being in itself an offence, inclines man to commit sins" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 2515).
51.Jump up ^ Theodore G. Tappert, The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1959), 29.
52.Jump up ^ Luther's Works, American edition, vol. 43, p. 40, ed. H. Lehmann, Fortress, 1968
53.Jump up ^ John Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, II.1.8, LCC, 2 vols., trans. Ford Lewis Battles, ed. John T. McNeill (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 251 (page 217 of CCEL edition). Cf. Institutes of the Christian Religion at the Christian Classics Ethereal Library
54.Jump up ^ Decree 5 concerning original sin
55.Jump up ^ Catechism of the Catholic Church, 416–418
56.Jump up ^ Catechism of the Catholic Church, 357
57.Jump up ^ Cardinal Christoph Schonborn, Man the Image of God
58.Jump up ^ United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, "Made in the Image of God"
59.^ Jump up to: a b Catechism of the Catholic Church, 405
60.Jump up ^ What the Catholic Church Teaches about Original Sin
61.Jump up ^ Catechism of the Catholic Church 404
62.Jump up ^ Item 407 in section 1.2.1.7. Emphasis added.
63.Jump up ^ Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus (1854) quoted in Catechism of the Catholic Church, 491 [2]
64.Jump up ^ Catechism of St. Philaret, questions 157
65.Jump up ^ The term "ancestral sin" is also used, as in Greek προπατορικὴ ἁμαρτία (e.g. Πόλεμος και φτώχεια – η ορθόδοξη άποψη, Η νηστεία της Σαρακοστής, Πώς στράφηκε ο Λούθηρος κατά του Μοναχισμού – του Γεωργίου Φλωρόφσκυ) or προπατορικὸ ἁμάρτημα (e.g., Απαντήσεις σε ερωτήματα δογματικά – Ανδρέα Θεοδώρου, εκδ. Αποστολικής Διακονίας, 1997, σελ. 156–161, Θεοτόκος και προπατορικό αμάρτημα)
66.Jump up ^ stmaryorthodoxchurch.org
67.Jump up ^ Holy Trinity Romanian Orthodox Church: Original Sin and Its Consequences
68.Jump up ^ The Longer Catechism of The Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Church, 168
69.Jump up ^ Glory to God for all things [3]./
70.Jump up ^ Fr. John Matusiak, http://www.oca.org/QA.asp?ID=4&SID=3
71.Jump up ^ Mother Mary and Ware, Kallistos, "The Festal Menaion", p. 47. St. Tikhon's Seminary Press, 1998.
72.Jump up ^ Laurent Cleenewerck, His Broken Body (Euclid University Press 2007 ISBN 978-0-61518361-9), p. 410[self-published source]
73.Jump up ^ Articles of Religion - Anglicans Online.
74.Jump up ^ Doctrine in the Church of England, 1938, London: SPCK; p. 64
75.Jump up ^ The United Methodist Church: The Articles of Religion of the Methodist Church – Article V—Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation
76.Jump up ^ The SDA Bible Commentary, vol.5, p.1131.
77.Jump up ^ http://www.bibelschule.info/streaming/Woodrow-W.-Whidden---Adventist-Theology---The-Wesleyan-Connection_23617.pdf
78.Jump up ^ E. G. White, Signs of the Times, August 29, 1892
79.^ Jump up to: a b c Gerhard Pfandl. "Some thoughts on Original Sin" (PDF). Biblical Research Institute
80.Jump up ^ Christ's Human Nature
81.Jump up ^ Questions on Doctrines Documents via Andrews University
82.Jump up ^ adventistbiblicalresearch.org
83.^ Jump up to: a b Jehovah's Witnesses—Proclaimers of God's Kingdom. Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society. 1993. pp. 144–145.
84.^ Jump up to: a b What Does the Bible Really Teach?. Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society. 2005. p. 32.
85.^ Jump up to: a b "The Watchtower 1973, page 724" – "Declaration and resolution", The Watchtower, December 1, 1973, page 724.
86.Jump up ^ Penton, M.J. (1997). Apocalypse Delayed. University of Toronto Press. pp. 26–29. ISBN 9780802079732.
87.Jump up ^ "Angels—How They Affect Us". The Watchtower: 7. January 15, 2006.
88.Jump up ^ ADAM – jw.org. Retrieved 10 January 2013.
89.Jump up ^ Adam’s Sin – The Time for True Submission to God – jw.org. Retrieved 10 January 2013.
90.Jump up ^ Alexander, Thomas G. (1989), Bergera, Gary James, ed., Line Upon Line: Essays on Mormon Doctrine, Salt Lake City: Signature Books, pp. 55–56.
91.Jump up ^ Id.
92.^ Jump up to: a b Alexander, p. 64.
93.Jump up ^ Articles of Faith 1:2
94.Jump up ^ Merrill, Byron R. (1992). "Original sin". In Ludlow, Daniel H. Encyclopedia of Mormonism. New York: Macmillan Publishing. pp. 1052–1053. ISBN 0-02-879602-0. OCLC 24502140.
95.Jump up ^ Swedenborg 1749–56, p. 410: [url=http://books.google.com/books?id=U3tQJ9j_1ToC&pg=PR3&lpg=PR3&dq=Arcana+Coelestia+john+f+potts&source=bl&ots=kiaZ2hbwTG&sig=P-jzl0rzPlua-881yeIcjKLo2ZY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=hW0yUKu6A6OSiAKtmoDgAw&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=ancient%20church%20adam&f=false n. 1101–1150].
96.Jump up ^ Swedenborg 1749–56, p. 96, n. 313: "But as to hereditary evil, the case is this. Everyone who commits actual sin thereby induces on himself a nature, and the evil from it is implanted in his children, and becomes hereditary. It thus descends from every parent, from the father, grandfather, great-grandfather, and their ancestors in succession, and is thus multiplied and augmented in each descending posterity, remaining with each person, and being increased in each by his actual sins, and never being dissipated so as to become harmless except in those who are being regenerated by the Lord. Every attentive observer may see evidence of this truth in the fact that the evil inclinations of parents remain visibly in their children, so that one family, and even an entire race, may be thereby distinguished from every other.".
97.Jump up ^ Swedenborg 1749-56, p. 229, n.719:"There are evils in man which must be dispersed while he is being regenerated, that is, which must be loosened and attempered by goods; for no actual and hereditary evil in man can be so dispersed as to be abolished. It still remains implanted; and can only be so far loosened and attempered by goods from the Lord that it does not injure, and does not appear, which is an arcanum hitherto unknown. Actual evils are those which are loosened and attempered, and not hereditary evils; which also is a thing unknown.".
98.Jump up ^ Swedenborg 1749-56, p. 336, n.966: "It is to be observed that in the other life no one undergoes any punishment and torture on account of his hereditary evil, but only on account of the actual evils which he himself has committed.".
99.Jump up ^ Fox, Robin Lane (2006). The Unauthorized Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible. London: Penguin. ISBN 9780141022963.
100.Jump up ^ C. Darwin and A. R. Wallace, 1858, "On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection", Read at the Linnean Society of London on 1 July 1858 by J. J. Bennett, and published in Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 3, (20 August 1858), 46–50.
101.Jump up ^ C. Darwin, 1859, On the Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, published by John Murray, London.
102.Jump up ^ P J Bowler, 2007, Monkey Trials and Gorilla Sermons: Evolution and Christianity from Darwin to Intelligent Design, Harvard University Press, London; see page 225.
103.Jump up ^ I J J Spangenberg, 2013, "On the origin of death: Paul and Augustine meet Charles Darwin", HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 69(1), Art. #1992, 8 pages. doi:10.4102/ hts.v69i1.1992; see page 7.
104.Jump up ^ Langdon Gilkey, Langdon Brown Gilkey. On Niehbuhr (University of Chicago Press 2002 ISBN 978-0-22629342-4), p. 93
105.Jump up ^ Jerry D. Korsmeyer Evolution and Eden (Paulist Press 1998) ISBN 978-0-8091-3815-9
106.Jump up ^ Tatha Wiley, Original Sin: Origins, Developments, Contemporary Meanings (Paulist Press 2002 ISBN 978-0-8091-4128-9)
107.Jump up ^ John Redford, What Is Catholicism (Our Sunday Visitor 1999 ISBN 978-0-87973587-6), p. 55
108.Jump up ^ Jerry D. Korsmeyer, Evolution and Eden, p. 73
Bibliography[edit]
Brachtendorf, J. (1997). "Cicero and Augustine on the Passions" (PDF). Revue des Etudes Augustiniennes (Paris: Institut d'études augustiniennes) 43: 289–308.
Catechism, U.S. Catholic Church (2003). Catechism of the Catholic Church : with modifications from the Editio Typica. (2nd ed.). New York: Doubleday. ISBN 9780385508193.
Kelly, J.N.D. (2000). Early Christian doctrines (5th rev. ed.). London: Continuum. ISBN 9780826452528.
ODCC, ed. by Frank Leslie Cross; Elizabeth A. Livingstone (2005). "Original sin". The Oxford dictionary of the Christian Church (3rd rev. ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780192802903.
Swedenborg, Emanuel; Trans. by John F. Potts (1749–56). Arcana Coelestia, Vol. 1 of 8 (2008 Reprint ed.). Forgotten Books. ISBN 9781606201077.
Trapè, Agostino (1987). S. Agostino, introduzione alla dottrina della grazia. Collana di Studi Agostiniani 4. I - Natura e Grazia. Roma: Nuova Biblioteca agostiniana. p. 422. ISBN 88-311-3402-7.
Turner, H.E.W. The patristic doctrine of redemption : a study of the development of doctrine during the first five centuries / by H.E.W. Turner. (2004 Reprint ed.). Eugene, Or.: Wipf & Stock Publishers. ISBN 9781592449309.
Wallace, A.J.; R. D. Rusk (2010). Moral transformation : the original Christian paradigm of salvation. New Zealand: Bridgehead Publishing. ISBN 9781456389802.
Woo, B. Hoon (2014). "Is God the Author of Sin?—Jonathan Edwards’s Theodicy". Puritan Reformed Journal 6 (1): 98–123.
External links[edit]
 Wikiquote has quotations related to: Original sin
Article "Original Sin" in Catholic Encyclopedia
The Book of Concord The Defense of the Augsburg Confession, Article II: Of Original Sin; from an early Protestant perspective, part of the Augsburg Confession.
Original Sin According To St. Paul by John S. Romanides
Ancestral Versus Original Sin by Father Antony Hughes, St. Mary Antiochian Orthodox Church, Cambridge, Massachusetts
Original Sin by Michael Bremmer
CatholicismCouncil of Trent (June 17, 1546). "Canones et Decreta Dogmatica Concilii Tridentini: Fifth Session, Decree concerning Original Sin". at www.ccel.org. Retrieved 1 November 2013.



[hide]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Hamartiology


Adam ·
 Evil ·
 The Fall ·
 Original sin ·
 Christian views on sin ·
 Imputation of sin ·
 Other views on sin ·
 Supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism ·
 Theodicy ·
 Total depravity
 

See also Apologetics ·
 Soteriology ·
 Demonology
 

  



Categories: Christian philosophy
Christian hamartiology
Systematic theology
Adam and Eve
Christian terminology
Sin
















Navigation menu




Create account
Log in




Article

Talk












Read

Edit

View history

























Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
العربية
Azərbaycanca
Български
Català
Čeština
Dansk
Deutsch
Eesti
Ελληνικά
Español
Esperanto
فارسی
Français
Galego
한국어
Hrvatski
Bahasa Indonesia
Íslenska
Italiano
עברית
Kiswahili
Latina
Latviešu
Magyar
മലയാളം
Nederlands
日本語
Norsk bokmål
Norsk nynorsk
Polski
Português
Română
Русский
Simple English
Slovenčina
Slovenščina
Српски / srpski
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Suomi
Svenska
Tagalog
ไทย
Українська
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 13 June 2015, at 03:34.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
  

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin















Christian views on sin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search





 The Prodigal son (cf. Lk 15:11-32).
The doctrine of sin is central to Christianity, since its basic message is about redemption in Jesus Christ.[1] Christian hamartiology describes sin as an act of offence against God by despising his Person and his commandments, and by injuring others.[2] It is an evil human act, which violates the rational nature of man as well as God's nature and his eternal law. According to the classical definition of St. Augustine of Hippo sin is "a word, deed, or desire in opposition to the eternal law of God."[3][4]
Among some scholars, sin is understood mostly as legal infraction or contract violation or violation of Christian ethics, and so salvation tends to be viewed in legal terms, which is similar to Jewish thinking,[citation needed] see Judaism and Christianity#Sin for a comparison.
Other Christian scholars understand sin to be fundamentally relational—a loss of love for God and an elevation of self-love ("concupiscence", in this sense), as was later propounded by Augustine in his debate with the Pelagians.[5] As with the legal definition of sin, this definition also affects the understanding of Grace and salvation, which are thus viewed in relational terms.[6][7]



Contents  [hide]
1 Sin in the Bible 1.1 Old Testament 1.1.1 Original sin

2 Roman Catholic views 2.1 Thomas Aquinas
2.2 Catechism
3 Protestant views 3.1 Defined types of sin
4 Eastern Christian views
5 Jehovah's Witnesses
6 Liberal theology
7 Atonement
8 See also
9 References
10 Bibliography
11 External links

Sin in the Bible[edit]
Old Testament[edit]
The first reference to "sin" as a noun is of sin "lying at the door," waiting to overpower Cain,[Gen 4:7][cf. 1 Pet 5:8] a form of literary theriomorphism.[8] The first use of the verb is God preventing Abimelech from "sinning against me" by touching Abraham's wife in Genesis 20. Isaiah announced the consequences: a separation between God and man, and unrequited worshipping.[Isaiah 59:2]
Original sin[edit]
Main article: Original sin
According to mainstream Christian theology, at the moment Adam and Eve ate the fruit from the tree—which God had commanded them not to do—both sin and death were born. The years of life were limited. Since Adam represented the human race, he is held responsible, for which reason the Fall of man is referred to as the "sin of Adam", which is deemed to be inherited from him as a condition of fallen human nature. This doctrine is closely associated with Augustine of Hippo. The extent to which it was held by early Christians is debated.[9]
The concept of Original Sin is said to be cause of Adam and his descendants losing unrestricted access to God: "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned."[Rom 5:12] In Christian theology, the death of Jesus on the cross is the atonement to the sin of Adam.[10] "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."[1 Cor 15:22] As a result of that act of atonement, all who put their trust in Jesus (and, in some denominations, are baptized) now have unrestricted access to God through him.
Roman Catholic views[edit]
Thomas Aquinas[edit]



 Aquinas distinguished between sins of omission, and sins of commission[11][12][13]
The way Thomas Aquinas viewed sin and vices was radically different from later approaches, especially that of 17th century moral theology. He presented sin and vices as contraries of virtues. He discusses the subject in his Summa Theologica part Ia-IIae (Prima secundae) qq.71-89.[14]
In one of his definitions of sin Thomas quotes Augustine of Hippo's description of sin as "a thought, words and deed against the Eternal Law."'[15]

Now there are two rules of the human will: one is proximate and homogeneous, viz. the human reason; the other is the first rule, viz. the eternal law, which is God's reason, so to speak (quasi ratio Dei). Accordingly Augustine includes two things in the definition of sin; one, pertaining to the substance of a human act, and which is the matter, so to speak, of sin, when he says, word, deed, or desire; the other, pertaining to the nature of evil, and which is the form, as it were, of sin, when he says, contrary to the eternal law. (STh I-II q.71 a.6)[16]
To recognise the possibilities of sin in man is equal to acknowledge his human nature, his control and mastery of his own actions. Sin is a motion to the goal, it is judged by the object to which it is directed. The field of sin is the same as the field of virtue. There are three major fields: relationship with God, with oneself and with the neighbour. Thomas distinguished between mortal and venial sins. Mortal sin is when a person has irreparably destroyed the very principle of his/her order to the goal of life. Venial sin is when he/she has acted in a certain disordered way without destructing that principle:

Consequently it is a mortal sin generically, whether it be contrary to the love of God, e.g. blasphemy, perjury, and the like, or against the love of one's neighbour, e.g. murder, adultery, and such like: wherefore such sins are mortal by reason of their genus. Sometimes, however, the sinner's will is directed to a thing containing a certain inordinateness, but which is not contrary to the love of God and one's neighbour, e.g. an idle word, excessive laughter, and so forth: and such sins are venial by reason of their genus. (STh I-II q.72 a.5)
According to Aquinas the gravity of sin depends also on some disposition of the agent (cf. STh I-II q. 18, aa. 4, 6). Sin, venial by reason of its object, may become mortal. It happens when person fixes his/her ultimate happiness, the last end of his/her life (Lat. finis ultimus) in the object of that venial sin. When venial sin is used as a way to provoke mortal sin it becomes mortal as well, e.g. when someone uses empty conversation or a chat to seduce someone to commit adultery. Also sin, mortal by reason of its object, may become venial because of the agent's disposition when his/her evil act does not have full moral capacity, i.e. is not deliberated by reason. That may happen for instance when sudden movements of unbelief arise in the mind. (Cf. STh I-II q.72 a.5).
The difference and gravity of sins may be discerned on the grounds of spirit and flesh, even mortal sins may differ in gravity. Carnal sins like lust, adultery or fornication, gluttony and avarice, because the person who commits them is inordinately directed towards material goods that are a serious matter, are mortal sins. They may cause much shame and infamy. But spiritual sins like blaspheming of God or apostasy are, according to Thomas, still greater evil, as they have more of the aversion from God. They are directed against a greater object. The formal, essential element of sin is more at the centre in them. (cf. STh I-II q.72 a.2)[11][17]
According to another formulation of the concept of sin in the Summa, at the heart of sin is "the turning away from the immutable good", i.e. God, and "inordinate turning to mutable good", i.e. creatures. (STh I-IIae q.87 a.4) This cannot be understood as if in the concrete sinful deed the sinner commits two separate and independent acts. Both aversio and conversio constitute one single guilty action. At the root of the inordinate turning to the creatures is self-love which expresses itself in disordered desire (cupiditas) and rebellion towards God (superbia).[18]
Speaking about sloth (Lat. acedia) Thomas points out that every deed which "by its very nature is contrary to charity is a mortal sin". An effect of such deed is the destruction of "spiritual life which is the effect of charity, whereby God dwells in us." Sin of a mortal character is always committed with the consent of reason: "Because the consummation of sin is in the consent of reason"'. (cf. STh II-IIae q.35 a.3) Venial and mortal sins can be compared to sickness and death. While venial sin impairs full healthy activity of a person, mortal sin destroys the principle of spiritual life in him/her.[19]
Catechism[edit]
Roman Catholic doctrine distinguishes between personal sin (also sometimes called "actual sin") and original sin. Personal sins are either mortal or venial.
Mortal sins are sins of grave (serious) matter, where the sinner performs the act with full knowledge and deliberate consent. (cf. CCC 1857)
The act of committing a mortal sin destroys charity, i. e. the grace in the heart of a Christian; it is in itself a rejection of God (CCC1855). If left un-reconciled, mortal sins may lead to eternal separation from God, traditionally called damnation.
Venial sins are sins which do not meet the conditions for mortal sins. The act of committing a venial sin does not cut off the sinner from God's grace, as the sinner has not rejected God. However, venial sins do injure the relationship between the sinner and God, and as such, must be reconciled to God, either through the Sacrament of Reconciliation or receiving the Eucharist (after proper contrition fulfilled).
Both mortal and venial sins have a dual nature of punishment. They incur both guilt for the sin, yielding eternal punishment, and temporal punishment for the sin. Reconciliation is an act of God's mercy, and addresses the guilt and eternal punishment for sin. Purgatory and indulgences address the temporal punishment for sin, and exercise of God's justice.
Roman Catholic doctrine also sees sin as being twofold: Sin is, at once, any evil or immoral action which infracts God's law and the inevitable consequences, the state of being that comes about by committing the sinful action. Sin can and does alienate a person both from God and the community. Hence, the Catholic Church's insistence on reconciliation with both God and the Church itself.
The Roman Catholic view of sin has recently expanded. Monsignor Gianfranco Girotti, Regent of the Catholic Apostolic Penitentiary, has said that "known sins increasingly manifest themselves as behavior that damages society as a whole,"[20] including, for example:
"certain violations of the fundamental rights of human nature, through genetic manipulations [or experiments],"
"drug [abuse], which weakens the mind and obscures intelligence,"
"environmental pollution,"
"abortion and pedophilia," and
the widening social and economic differences between the rich and the poor, which "cause an unbearable social injustice" (accumulating excessive wealth, inflicting poverty). The revision was aimed at encouraging confession or the Sacrament of Penance.
Mortal sins, which are any severe and intentional actions that directly disobey God, are often confused with the seven deadly sins, which are pride, envy, lust, anger, greed, sloth and gluttony. They are not, however, the same.
Another group of four or five sins distinguished by the Church are the sins that cry to heaven: murder, sodomy, (oppression of a people,) oppression of the weak and defrauding the laborer.[21]
See also: Seven deadly sins
Protestant views[edit]
Many Protestants of a Calvinist orientation teach that, due to original sin, humanity has lost any and all capacity to move towards reconciliation with God (Romans 3:23;6:23; Ephesians 2:1-3); in fact, this inborn sin turns humans away from God and towards themselves and their own desires (Isaiah 53:6a). Thus, humans may be brought back into a relationship with God only by way of God's rescuing the sinner from his/her hopeless condition (Galatians 5:17-21; Ephesians 2:4-10) through Jesus' substitutionary atonement (Romans 5:6-8; Colossians 2:13-15; 1 Timothy 2:5-6). According to traditional Reformed theology and classical Lutheranism, Salvation is sola fide (by faith alone); sola gratia (by grace alone); and is begun and completed by God alone through Jesus (Ephesians 2:8,9). This understanding of original sin (Romans 5:12-19), is most closely associated with Calvinist doctrine (see total depravity) and Lutheranism. Calvinism allows for the relative or nominal "goodness" of humanity through God's common grace upon both those predestined to salvation and those predestined to damnation, upon the regenerate and the unregenerate. Methodist Arminian theology adapts the concept by stating that humans, entirely sinful and totally depraved, can only "do good" through God's prevenient grace.
This is in contrast to the Roman Catholic teaching that while sin has tarnished the original goodness of humanity prior to the Fall, it has not entirely extinguished that goodness, or at least the potential for goodness, allowing humans to reach towards God to share in the Redemption which Jesus Christ won for them. Some Protestants and Orthodox Christians hold similar views.
There is dispute about where sin originated. Some who interpret the king of Tyre in Ezekiel 28 as a symbol for Satan believe sin originated when Satan coveted the position that rightfully belongs to God. The origin of individual sins is discussed in James 1:14-15 - "14but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. 15Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death." (NIV)
Defined types of sin[edit]
Within some branches of Protestantism, there are several defined types of sin (as in Roman Catholicism):
Original sin—Most denominations of Christianity interpret the Garden of Eden account in Genesis in terms of the fall of man. Adam and Eve's disobedience was the first sin man ever committed, and their original sin (or the effects of the sin) is passed on to their descendants (or has become a part of their environment). See also: total depravity.
Concupiscence
Venial sin
Mortal sin
Eternal sin—Commonly called the Unforgivable sin (mentioned in Matthew 12:31), this is perhaps the most controversial sin, whereby someone has become an apostate, forever denying themselves a life of faith and experience of salvation; the precise nature of this sin is often disputed.
Eastern Christian views[edit]
The (Chalcedonian) Eastern Orthodox as well as the (non-Chalcedonian) Oriental Orthodox use "sin" both to refer to humanity's fallen condition and to refer to individual sinful acts. In many ways the Orthodox Christian view of sin is similar to the Jewish, although neither form of Orthodoxy makes formal distinctions among "grades" of sins.
The Eastern Catholic Churches, which derive their theology and spirituality from same sources as the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox, tend not to adhere to the Roman Catholic distinction between mortal and venial sin taught by the Latin Church. Like the Orthodox Churches, however, the Eastern Catholic Churches do make a distinction between sins that are serious enough to bar one from Holy Communion (and must be confessed before receiving once again) and those which are not sufficiently serious to do so. In this respect, the Eastern Tradition is similar to the Western, but the Eastern Churches do not consider death in such a state to automatically mean damnation to "hell."[citation needed]
Jehovah's Witnesses[edit]
Jehovah's Witnesses believe that sin is inherited, like a disease, and has been passed on from generation to generation of humans, beginning with Adam and Eve, whom Witnesses believe are real historical characters.[22] They believe that it began with the Devil, and then with humans wanting to decide for themselves what was "Good and Bad." They believe that at that very moment they lost perfection and began to die. Jehovah's Witnesses consider human beings to be souls, and so when a human dies due to sin, they believe that his soul dies as well.[23] They believe that Jesus is the only human ever to have lived and died sinless.
Liberal theology[edit]
Within Liberal Christianity, individual sins such as abortion or homosexual acts are often less emphasized. Sin can be seen as interpersonal (harming one's neighbours, friends, or families with negative actions), environmental (pollution, overconsumption), structural (misogyny, racism, etc.), or personal (actions which are harmful to oneself). As a result of this re-interpretation of the traditional concept of sin, new concepts of liberation and salvation are created. Old Testament writers like Amos (2:7), Jeremiah (cf Book of Lamentations 3:34-36) and Nehemiah (1:6f) emphasise social justice and the rights of the oppressed. Modern figures like Martin Luther King, Catholic Dorothy Day [1] and evangelical Jim Wallis have campaigned on issues like social justice, Immigration reform and peace [2].
See also Collective Salvation and Liberation theology
Atonement[edit]
Main article: Atonement in Christianity
In Christianity, it is generally understood that the death of Jesus was a sacrifice that relieves believers of the burden of their sins. However, the actual meaning of this precept is very widely debated. The traditional teaching of some churches traces this idea of atonement to blood sacrifices in the ancient Hebraic faith.
Christian theologians have presented different interpretations of atonement:
Origen taught that the death of Christ was a ransom paid to Satan in satisfaction of his claim on the souls of humanity as a result of sin. This was opposed by theologians such as St. Gregory Nazianzen, who maintained that this would have made Satan a power equal to God.
Irenaeus of Lyons taught that Christ recapitulated in himself all the stages of life of sinful man, and that his perfect obedience substituted for Adam's disobedience.
Athanasius of Alexandria taught that Christ came to overcome death and corruption, and to remake humanity in God's image again.[24]
Augustine of Hippo said that sin was not a created thing at all, but was "privatio boni", a "taking away of good".
Anselm of Canterbury taught that Christ's death satisfied God's offended sense of justice over the sins of humanity. God rewarded Christ's obedience, which built up a storehouse of merit and a treasury of grace that believers could share by their faith in Christ. This view is known as the satisfaction theory of atonement, the merit theory, or sometimes the commercial theory. Anselm's teaching is contained in his treatise Cur Deus Homo (Why God Became Human). Anselm's ideas were later expanded utilizing Aristotelian philosophy into a grand theological system by Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, particularly in his Summa Theologica, which although initially inciting controversy eventually became official Roman Catholic doctrine.
Pierre Abélard developed the view that Christ's Passion was God suffering with his creatures in order to show the greatness of his love for them, and the realization of this love in turn leads to repentance. It is often known as the moral influence theory of atonement and became central to more liberal strands of Christian theology.
Martin Luther and John Calvin, leaders of the Protestant Reformation, owed much to Anselm's theory and taught that Christ, the only sinless person, was obedient to take upon himself the penalty for the sins that should have been visited on men and women. This view is a version of substitutionary atonement and is sometimes called the penal substitution view. It is derived from the Roman Catholic satisfaction theory of atonement, although it is not identical to that of Anselm. Calvin additionally advocated a doctrine of limited atonement, which teaches that the atonement extends and applies only to the sins of the eternally predestined elect rather than to the entire human race, whereas Anselm affirmed a general redemption for all humanity and denied that Christ received punishment for sins, although he made satisfaction to God.
D.L. Moody once said, "If you are under the power of evil, and you want to get under the power of God, cry to Him to bring you over to His service; cry to Him to take you into His army. He will hear you; He will come to you, and, if need be, He will send a legion of angels to help you to fight your way up to heaven. God will take you by the right hand and lead you through this wilderness, over death, and take you right into His kingdom. That's what the Son of Man came to do. He has never deceived us; just say here; "Christ is my deliverer.""
Arminianism has traditionally taught what is known as the governmental theory of atonement. Drawing primarily from the works of Jacobus Arminius and especially Hugo Grotius, the governmental theory teaches that Christ suffered for humankind so that God could forgive humans while still maintaining divine justice. Unlike the traditional Reformed perspective, this view states that Christ was not punished by God the Father in the place of sinners, for true forgiveness would not be possible if humankind's offenses were already punished. Christ's suffering was a real and meaningful substitutionary atonement for the punishment humans deserve, but Christ was not punished on behalf of some or all of the human race. This view has prospered in traditional Methodism and all who follow the teachings of John Wesley, and has been detailed by, among others, 19th century Methodist theologian John Miley in his Atonement in Christ and 20th century Church of the Nazarene theologian J. Kenneth Grider in his Wesleyan-Holiness Theology. Variations of this view have also been espoused by 18th century Puritan Jonathan Edwards and 19th century revival leader Charles Grandison Finney.
Karl Barth taught that Christ's death manifested God's love and his hatred for sin.
Barbara Reid, a dissenting Roman Catholic feminist and Dominican nun, argues that commonly conceived atonement theologies are harmful, especially to women and other oppressed minorities.[25] Other liberal and radical theologians have also challenged traditional views of atonement. (see collective salvation)
Mary Baker Eddy, founder of the Christian Science movement, taught that atonement exemplifies our underlying spiritual unity with God, whereby we reflect divine Love (God): Christ's atonement reconciles man to God, not God to man.
See also[edit]
Heaven (Christianity)
Law of Christ
Reconciliation
Sacraments (Catholic Church)
Salvation
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Rahner, p. 1588
2.Jump up ^ Sabourin, p. 696
3.Jump up ^ Contra Faustum Manichaeum, 22,27; PL 42,418; cf. Thomas Aquinas, STh I-II q71 a6.
4.Jump up ^ Mc Guinness, p. 241
5.Jump up ^ On Grace and Free Will (see Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, trans. P.Holmes, vol. 5; 30-31 [14-15]).
6.Jump up ^ Grace is understood as God's love brought to the human soul by the Spirit (Romans 5:5), and salvation is the establishment of that love relationship.
7.Jump up ^ For a historical review of this understanding, see R.N.Frost, "Sin and Grace", in Paul L. Metzger, Trinitarian Soundings, T&T Clark, 2005.
8.Jump up ^ Synthesis: bulletin du Comité national de littérature comparée / Comitetul Național pentru Literatură Comparată, Institutul de Istorie și Teorie Literară "G. Călinescu." - 2002 "Sin is personified as (an animal?) which "crouches" at the door of Cain (Gen 4:7). As Gerhard von Rad (Genesis, 105) remarks, 'The comparison of sin with a beast of prey lying before the door is strange, as is the purely decorative use"
9.Jump up ^ A. J. Wallace, R. D. Rusk, R. D. Rusk, Moral Transformation: The Original Christian Paradigm of Salvation, Bridgehead, 2010, p.281.
10.Jump up ^ Stephen Finlan, Problems With Atonement: The Origins Of, And Controversy About, The Atonement Doctrine, Liturgical Press, 2005, p.4
11.^ Jump up to: a b Cf. Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica I-II q. 72 Of the Distinction of Sins
12.Jump up ^ Catholic Encyclopedia: Omission, New Advent, retrieved 28 February 2012
13.Jump up ^ Aquinas: Aquinas's Thoughts On Morality, The Philosopher's Lighthouse, retrieved 28 February 2012
14.Jump up ^ Pinckaers, pp. 220 and 225-6
15.Jump up ^ Contra Faustum, 22, 27, PL 44,418:
16.Jump up ^ Cf. Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica I-II q. 71 Of Vice and Sin Considered in Themselves
17.Jump up ^ Farrell, p.255-272
18.Jump up ^ Josef Pieper (2001). The Concept of Sin. pp. 60–63.; cf. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica II-IIae q34 a2; I q94 a1; II-IIae q162 a6; I-IIae q72 a2.
19.Jump up ^ Farrell, p. 353
20.Jump up ^ "Vatican lists new sinful behaviors". Associated Press. 2008. Archived from the original on 2008-03-11. Retrieved 2008-03-10.
21.Jump up ^ Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1997: "1867 The catechetical tradition also recalls that there are "sins that cry to heaven": the blood of Abel, the sin of the Sodomites, the cry of the people oppressed in Egypt, the cry of the foreigner, the widow, and the orphan, injustice to the wage earner."
22.Jump up ^ "What Does the Bible Really Teach" pp. 61-63 'Why humans die?'
23.Jump up ^ "What Does the Bible Really Teach" pp. 57-65 'Where are the Dead?'
24.Jump up ^ See On the Incarnation, by St. Athanasius
25.Jump up ^ Barbara E. Reid, Taking Up the Cross: New Testament Interpretations Through Latina and Feminist Eyes (Fortress, 2007), 17-19.
Bibliography[edit]
Mc Guinness, I. Sin (Theology of), in: New Catholic Encyclopaedia, vol. XIII, (reprinted 1981), The Catholic University of America, Washington D.C., pp. 241–245.
Rahner, Karl, Schoonberg, Piet. "Sin", in: Encyclopedia of Theology: A Concise Sacramentum Mundi . (1986) Tunbridge Wells, Kent, UK: Burns & Oates. pp. 1579–1590. ISBN 0-86012-228-X
Farrell, Walter, A companion to the Summa vol. 2 – The Pursuit of Happiness (1985 /reprinted 2nd ed./) Westminster, Maryland - London: Christian Classics, Sheed & Ward, p. 467, ISBN 0-7220-2520-3 (UK) 0-87061-119-4 (USA)
Pieper, Josef, The Concept of Sin,(2001), tranlsated by Edward T. Oakes SJ, South Bend, Indiana: St. Augustines Press; p. 128 ISBN 1-890318-08-6
Pinckaers, Servais, The Sources of Christian Ethics, (trnasl. from French by M. T. Noble O.P.), Washington, D.C., The Catholic University of America Press, 1995. Reprinted: Edinburgh: T&T Clark, ISBN 0-567-29287-8 p. 489
Sabourin, Leopold SJ, Sin, in: The Oxford Companion to the Bible. (1993) Bruce M. Metzger, Michael D. Coogan (ed.) New York - Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504645-5, pp. 696.
External links[edit]
Augustine of Hippo, Confessions
Augustine of Hippo, On Christian Doctrine
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica I-II q71: Of Vice and Sin Considered in Themselves



[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Hamartiology




























[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Seven Deadly Sins































































  



Categories: Christian belief and doctrine
Christian hamartiology
Sin
Christian ethics












Navigation menu




Create account
Log in




Article

Talk












Read

Edit

View history

























Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
Чӑвашла
Français
Bahasa Indonesia
Nederlands
ไทย
Edit links
This page was last modified on 9 April 2015, at 22:05.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
    
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_sin














Christian views on sin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search





 The Prodigal son (cf. Lk 15:11-32).
The doctrine of sin is central to Christianity, since its basic message is about redemption in Jesus Christ.[1] Christian hamartiology describes sin as an act of offence against God by despising his Person and his commandments, and by injuring others.[2] It is an evil human act, which violates the rational nature of man as well as God's nature and his eternal law. According to the classical definition of St. Augustine of Hippo sin is "a word, deed, or desire in opposition to the eternal law of God."[3][4]
Among some scholars, sin is understood mostly as legal infraction or contract violation or violation of Christian ethics, and so salvation tends to be viewed in legal terms, which is similar to Jewish thinking,[citation needed] see Judaism and Christianity#Sin for a comparison.
Other Christian scholars understand sin to be fundamentally relational—a loss of love for God and an elevation of self-love ("concupiscence", in this sense), as was later propounded by Augustine in his debate with the Pelagians.[5] As with the legal definition of sin, this definition also affects the understanding of Grace and salvation, which are thus viewed in relational terms.[6][7]



Contents  [hide]
1 Sin in the Bible 1.1 Old Testament 1.1.1 Original sin

2 Roman Catholic views 2.1 Thomas Aquinas
2.2 Catechism
3 Protestant views 3.1 Defined types of sin
4 Eastern Christian views
5 Jehovah's Witnesses
6 Liberal theology
7 Atonement
8 See also
9 References
10 Bibliography
11 External links

Sin in the Bible[edit]
Old Testament[edit]
The first reference to "sin" as a noun is of sin "lying at the door," waiting to overpower Cain,[Gen 4:7][cf. 1 Pet 5:8] a form of literary theriomorphism.[8] The first use of the verb is God preventing Abimelech from "sinning against me" by touching Abraham's wife in Genesis 20. Isaiah announced the consequences: a separation between God and man, and unrequited worshipping.[Isaiah 59:2]
Original sin[edit]
Main article: Original sin
According to mainstream Christian theology, at the moment Adam and Eve ate the fruit from the tree—which God had commanded them not to do—both sin and death were born. The years of life were limited. Since Adam represented the human race, he is held responsible, for which reason the Fall of man is referred to as the "sin of Adam", which is deemed to be inherited from him as a condition of fallen human nature. This doctrine is closely associated with Augustine of Hippo. The extent to which it was held by early Christians is debated.[9]
The concept of Original Sin is said to be cause of Adam and his descendants losing unrestricted access to God: "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned."[Rom 5:12] In Christian theology, the death of Jesus on the cross is the atonement to the sin of Adam.[10] "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."[1 Cor 15:22] As a result of that act of atonement, all who put their trust in Jesus (and, in some denominations, are baptized) now have unrestricted access to God through him.
Roman Catholic views[edit]
Thomas Aquinas[edit]



 Aquinas distinguished between sins of omission, and sins of commission[11][12][13]
The way Thomas Aquinas viewed sin and vices was radically different from later approaches, especially that of 17th century moral theology. He presented sin and vices as contraries of virtues. He discusses the subject in his Summa Theologica part Ia-IIae (Prima secundae) qq.71-89.[14]
In one of his definitions of sin Thomas quotes Augustine of Hippo's description of sin as "a thought, words and deed against the Eternal Law."'[15]

Now there are two rules of the human will: one is proximate and homogeneous, viz. the human reason; the other is the first rule, viz. the eternal law, which is God's reason, so to speak (quasi ratio Dei). Accordingly Augustine includes two things in the definition of sin; one, pertaining to the substance of a human act, and which is the matter, so to speak, of sin, when he says, word, deed, or desire; the other, pertaining to the nature of evil, and which is the form, as it were, of sin, when he says, contrary to the eternal law. (STh I-II q.71 a.6)[16]
To recognise the possibilities of sin in man is equal to acknowledge his human nature, his control and mastery of his own actions. Sin is a motion to the goal, it is judged by the object to which it is directed. The field of sin is the same as the field of virtue. There are three major fields: relationship with God, with oneself and with the neighbour. Thomas distinguished between mortal and venial sins. Mortal sin is when a person has irreparably destroyed the very principle of his/her order to the goal of life. Venial sin is when he/she has acted in a certain disordered way without destructing that principle:

Consequently it is a mortal sin generically, whether it be contrary to the love of God, e.g. blasphemy, perjury, and the like, or against the love of one's neighbour, e.g. murder, adultery, and such like: wherefore such sins are mortal by reason of their genus. Sometimes, however, the sinner's will is directed to a thing containing a certain inordinateness, but which is not contrary to the love of God and one's neighbour, e.g. an idle word, excessive laughter, and so forth: and such sins are venial by reason of their genus. (STh I-II q.72 a.5)
According to Aquinas the gravity of sin depends also on some disposition of the agent (cf. STh I-II q. 18, aa. 4, 6). Sin, venial by reason of its object, may become mortal. It happens when person fixes his/her ultimate happiness, the last end of his/her life (Lat. finis ultimus) in the object of that venial sin. When venial sin is used as a way to provoke mortal sin it becomes mortal as well, e.g. when someone uses empty conversation or a chat to seduce someone to commit adultery. Also sin, mortal by reason of its object, may become venial because of the agent's disposition when his/her evil act does not have full moral capacity, i.e. is not deliberated by reason. That may happen for instance when sudden movements of unbelief arise in the mind. (Cf. STh I-II q.72 a.5).
The difference and gravity of sins may be discerned on the grounds of spirit and flesh, even mortal sins may differ in gravity. Carnal sins like lust, adultery or fornication, gluttony and avarice, because the person who commits them is inordinately directed towards material goods that are a serious matter, are mortal sins. They may cause much shame and infamy. But spiritual sins like blaspheming of God or apostasy are, according to Thomas, still greater evil, as they have more of the aversion from God. They are directed against a greater object. The formal, essential element of sin is more at the centre in them. (cf. STh I-II q.72 a.2)[11][17]
According to another formulation of the concept of sin in the Summa, at the heart of sin is "the turning away from the immutable good", i.e. God, and "inordinate turning to mutable good", i.e. creatures. (STh I-IIae q.87 a.4) This cannot be understood as if in the concrete sinful deed the sinner commits two separate and independent acts. Both aversio and conversio constitute one single guilty action. At the root of the inordinate turning to the creatures is self-love which expresses itself in disordered desire (cupiditas) and rebellion towards God (superbia).[18]
Speaking about sloth (Lat. acedia) Thomas points out that every deed which "by its very nature is contrary to charity is a mortal sin". An effect of such deed is the destruction of "spiritual life which is the effect of charity, whereby God dwells in us." Sin of a mortal character is always committed with the consent of reason: "Because the consummation of sin is in the consent of reason"'. (cf. STh II-IIae q.35 a.3) Venial and mortal sins can be compared to sickness and death. While venial sin impairs full healthy activity of a person, mortal sin destroys the principle of spiritual life in him/her.[19]
Catechism[edit]
Roman Catholic doctrine distinguishes between personal sin (also sometimes called "actual sin") and original sin. Personal sins are either mortal or venial.
Mortal sins are sins of grave (serious) matter, where the sinner performs the act with full knowledge and deliberate consent. (cf. CCC 1857)
The act of committing a mortal sin destroys charity, i. e. the grace in the heart of a Christian; it is in itself a rejection of God (CCC1855). If left un-reconciled, mortal sins may lead to eternal separation from God, traditionally called damnation.
Venial sins are sins which do not meet the conditions for mortal sins. The act of committing a venial sin does not cut off the sinner from God's grace, as the sinner has not rejected God. However, venial sins do injure the relationship between the sinner and God, and as such, must be reconciled to God, either through the Sacrament of Reconciliation or receiving the Eucharist (after proper contrition fulfilled).
Both mortal and venial sins have a dual nature of punishment. They incur both guilt for the sin, yielding eternal punishment, and temporal punishment for the sin. Reconciliation is an act of God's mercy, and addresses the guilt and eternal punishment for sin. Purgatory and indulgences address the temporal punishment for sin, and exercise of God's justice.
Roman Catholic doctrine also sees sin as being twofold: Sin is, at once, any evil or immoral action which infracts God's law and the inevitable consequences, the state of being that comes about by committing the sinful action. Sin can and does alienate a person both from God and the community. Hence, the Catholic Church's insistence on reconciliation with both God and the Church itself.
The Roman Catholic view of sin has recently expanded. Monsignor Gianfranco Girotti, Regent of the Catholic Apostolic Penitentiary, has said that "known sins increasingly manifest themselves as behavior that damages society as a whole,"[20] including, for example:
"certain violations of the fundamental rights of human nature, through genetic manipulations [or experiments],"
"drug [abuse], which weakens the mind and obscures intelligence,"
"environmental pollution,"
"abortion and pedophilia," and
the widening social and economic differences between the rich and the poor, which "cause an unbearable social injustice" (accumulating excessive wealth, inflicting poverty). The revision was aimed at encouraging confession or the Sacrament of Penance.
Mortal sins, which are any severe and intentional actions that directly disobey God, are often confused with the seven deadly sins, which are pride, envy, lust, anger, greed, sloth and gluttony. They are not, however, the same.
Another group of four or five sins distinguished by the Church are the sins that cry to heaven: murder, sodomy, (oppression of a people,) oppression of the weak and defrauding the laborer.[21]
See also: Seven deadly sins
Protestant views[edit]
Many Protestants of a Calvinist orientation teach that, due to original sin, humanity has lost any and all capacity to move towards reconciliation with God (Romans 3:23;6:23; Ephesians 2:1-3); in fact, this inborn sin turns humans away from God and towards themselves and their own desires (Isaiah 53:6a). Thus, humans may be brought back into a relationship with God only by way of God's rescuing the sinner from his/her hopeless condition (Galatians 5:17-21; Ephesians 2:4-10) through Jesus' substitutionary atonement (Romans 5:6-8; Colossians 2:13-15; 1 Timothy 2:5-6). According to traditional Reformed theology and classical Lutheranism, Salvation is sola fide (by faith alone); sola gratia (by grace alone); and is begun and completed by God alone through Jesus (Ephesians 2:8,9). This understanding of original sin (Romans 5:12-19), is most closely associated with Calvinist doctrine (see total depravity) and Lutheranism. Calvinism allows for the relative or nominal "goodness" of humanity through God's common grace upon both those predestined to salvation and those predestined to damnation, upon the regenerate and the unregenerate. Methodist Arminian theology adapts the concept by stating that humans, entirely sinful and totally depraved, can only "do good" through God's prevenient grace.
This is in contrast to the Roman Catholic teaching that while sin has tarnished the original goodness of humanity prior to the Fall, it has not entirely extinguished that goodness, or at least the potential for goodness, allowing humans to reach towards God to share in the Redemption which Jesus Christ won for them. Some Protestants and Orthodox Christians hold similar views.
There is dispute about where sin originated. Some who interpret the king of Tyre in Ezekiel 28 as a symbol for Satan believe sin originated when Satan coveted the position that rightfully belongs to God. The origin of individual sins is discussed in James 1:14-15 - "14but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. 15Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death." (NIV)
Defined types of sin[edit]
Within some branches of Protestantism, there are several defined types of sin (as in Roman Catholicism):
Original sin—Most denominations of Christianity interpret the Garden of Eden account in Genesis in terms of the fall of man. Adam and Eve's disobedience was the first sin man ever committed, and their original sin (or the effects of the sin) is passed on to their descendants (or has become a part of their environment). See also: total depravity.
Concupiscence
Venial sin
Mortal sin
Eternal sin—Commonly called the Unforgivable sin (mentioned in Matthew 12:31), this is perhaps the most controversial sin, whereby someone has become an apostate, forever denying themselves a life of faith and experience of salvation; the precise nature of this sin is often disputed.
Eastern Christian views[edit]
The (Chalcedonian) Eastern Orthodox as well as the (non-Chalcedonian) Oriental Orthodox use "sin" both to refer to humanity's fallen condition and to refer to individual sinful acts. In many ways the Orthodox Christian view of sin is similar to the Jewish, although neither form of Orthodoxy makes formal distinctions among "grades" of sins.
The Eastern Catholic Churches, which derive their theology and spirituality from same sources as the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox, tend not to adhere to the Roman Catholic distinction between mortal and venial sin taught by the Latin Church. Like the Orthodox Churches, however, the Eastern Catholic Churches do make a distinction between sins that are serious enough to bar one from Holy Communion (and must be confessed before receiving once again) and those which are not sufficiently serious to do so. In this respect, the Eastern Tradition is similar to the Western, but the Eastern Churches do not consider death in such a state to automatically mean damnation to "hell."[citation needed]
Jehovah's Witnesses[edit]
Jehovah's Witnesses believe that sin is inherited, like a disease, and has been passed on from generation to generation of humans, beginning with Adam and Eve, whom Witnesses believe are real historical characters.[22] They believe that it began with the Devil, and then with humans wanting to decide for themselves what was "Good and Bad." They believe that at that very moment they lost perfection and began to die. Jehovah's Witnesses consider human beings to be souls, and so when a human dies due to sin, they believe that his soul dies as well.[23] They believe that Jesus is the only human ever to have lived and died sinless.
Liberal theology[edit]
Within Liberal Christianity, individual sins such as abortion or homosexual acts are often less emphasized. Sin can be seen as interpersonal (harming one's neighbours, friends, or families with negative actions), environmental (pollution, overconsumption), structural (misogyny, racism, etc.), or personal (actions which are harmful to oneself). As a result of this re-interpretation of the traditional concept of sin, new concepts of liberation and salvation are created. Old Testament writers like Amos (2:7), Jeremiah (cf Book of Lamentations 3:34-36) and Nehemiah (1:6f) emphasise social justice and the rights of the oppressed. Modern figures like Martin Luther King, Catholic Dorothy Day [1] and evangelical Jim Wallis have campaigned on issues like social justice, Immigration reform and peace [2].
See also Collective Salvation and Liberation theology
Atonement[edit]
Main article: Atonement in Christianity
In Christianity, it is generally understood that the death of Jesus was a sacrifice that relieves believers of the burden of their sins. However, the actual meaning of this precept is very widely debated. The traditional teaching of some churches traces this idea of atonement to blood sacrifices in the ancient Hebraic faith.
Christian theologians have presented different interpretations of atonement:
Origen taught that the death of Christ was a ransom paid to Satan in satisfaction of his claim on the souls of humanity as a result of sin. This was opposed by theologians such as St. Gregory Nazianzen, who maintained that this would have made Satan a power equal to God.
Irenaeus of Lyons taught that Christ recapitulated in himself all the stages of life of sinful man, and that his perfect obedience substituted for Adam's disobedience.
Athanasius of Alexandria taught that Christ came to overcome death and corruption, and to remake humanity in God's image again.[24]
Augustine of Hippo said that sin was not a created thing at all, but was "privatio boni", a "taking away of good".
Anselm of Canterbury taught that Christ's death satisfied God's offended sense of justice over the sins of humanity. God rewarded Christ's obedience, which built up a storehouse of merit and a treasury of grace that believers could share by their faith in Christ. This view is known as the satisfaction theory of atonement, the merit theory, or sometimes the commercial theory. Anselm's teaching is contained in his treatise Cur Deus Homo (Why God Became Human). Anselm's ideas were later expanded utilizing Aristotelian philosophy into a grand theological system by Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, particularly in his Summa Theologica, which although initially inciting controversy eventually became official Roman Catholic doctrine.
Pierre Abélard developed the view that Christ's Passion was God suffering with his creatures in order to show the greatness of his love for them, and the realization of this love in turn leads to repentance. It is often known as the moral influence theory of atonement and became central to more liberal strands of Christian theology.
Martin Luther and John Calvin, leaders of the Protestant Reformation, owed much to Anselm's theory and taught that Christ, the only sinless person, was obedient to take upon himself the penalty for the sins that should have been visited on men and women. This view is a version of substitutionary atonement and is sometimes called the penal substitution view. It is derived from the Roman Catholic satisfaction theory of atonement, although it is not identical to that of Anselm. Calvin additionally advocated a doctrine of limited atonement, which teaches that the atonement extends and applies only to the sins of the eternally predestined elect rather than to the entire human race, whereas Anselm affirmed a general redemption for all humanity and denied that Christ received punishment for sins, although he made satisfaction to God.
D.L. Moody once said, "If you are under the power of evil, and you want to get under the power of God, cry to Him to bring you over to His service; cry to Him to take you into His army. He will hear you; He will come to you, and, if need be, He will send a legion of angels to help you to fight your way up to heaven. God will take you by the right hand and lead you through this wilderness, over death, and take you right into His kingdom. That's what the Son of Man came to do. He has never deceived us; just say here; "Christ is my deliverer.""
Arminianism has traditionally taught what is known as the governmental theory of atonement. Drawing primarily from the works of Jacobus Arminius and especially Hugo Grotius, the governmental theory teaches that Christ suffered for humankind so that God could forgive humans while still maintaining divine justice. Unlike the traditional Reformed perspective, this view states that Christ was not punished by God the Father in the place of sinners, for true forgiveness would not be possible if humankind's offenses were already punished. Christ's suffering was a real and meaningful substitutionary atonement for the punishment humans deserve, but Christ was not punished on behalf of some or all of the human race. This view has prospered in traditional Methodism and all who follow the teachings of John Wesley, and has been detailed by, among others, 19th century Methodist theologian John Miley in his Atonement in Christ and 20th century Church of the Nazarene theologian J. Kenneth Grider in his Wesleyan-Holiness Theology. Variations of this view have also been espoused by 18th century Puritan Jonathan Edwards and 19th century revival leader Charles Grandison Finney.
Karl Barth taught that Christ's death manifested God's love and his hatred for sin.
Barbara Reid, a dissenting Roman Catholic feminist and Dominican nun, argues that commonly conceived atonement theologies are harmful, especially to women and other oppressed minorities.[25] Other liberal and radical theologians have also challenged traditional views of atonement. (see collective salvation)
Mary Baker Eddy, founder of the Christian Science movement, taught that atonement exemplifies our underlying spiritual unity with God, whereby we reflect divine Love (God): Christ's atonement reconciles man to God, not God to man.
See also[edit]
Heaven (Christianity)
Law of Christ
Reconciliation
Sacraments (Catholic Church)
Salvation
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Rahner, p. 1588
2.Jump up ^ Sabourin, p. 696
3.Jump up ^ Contra Faustum Manichaeum, 22,27; PL 42,418; cf. Thomas Aquinas, STh I-II q71 a6.
4.Jump up ^ Mc Guinness, p. 241
5.Jump up ^ On Grace and Free Will (see Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, trans. P.Holmes, vol. 5; 30-31 [14-15]).
6.Jump up ^ Grace is understood as God's love brought to the human soul by the Spirit (Romans 5:5), and salvation is the establishment of that love relationship.
7.Jump up ^ For a historical review of this understanding, see R.N.Frost, "Sin and Grace", in Paul L. Metzger, Trinitarian Soundings, T&T Clark, 2005.
8.Jump up ^ Synthesis: bulletin du Comité national de littérature comparée / Comitetul Național pentru Literatură Comparată, Institutul de Istorie și Teorie Literară "G. Călinescu." - 2002 "Sin is personified as (an animal?) which "crouches" at the door of Cain (Gen 4:7). As Gerhard von Rad (Genesis, 105) remarks, 'The comparison of sin with a beast of prey lying before the door is strange, as is the purely decorative use"
9.Jump up ^ A. J. Wallace, R. D. Rusk, R. D. Rusk, Moral Transformation: The Original Christian Paradigm of Salvation, Bridgehead, 2010, p.281.
10.Jump up ^ Stephen Finlan, Problems With Atonement: The Origins Of, And Controversy About, The Atonement Doctrine, Liturgical Press, 2005, p.4
11.^ Jump up to: a b Cf. Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica I-II q. 72 Of the Distinction of Sins
12.Jump up ^ Catholic Encyclopedia: Omission, New Advent, retrieved 28 February 2012
13.Jump up ^ Aquinas: Aquinas's Thoughts On Morality, The Philosopher's Lighthouse, retrieved 28 February 2012
14.Jump up ^ Pinckaers, pp. 220 and 225-6
15.Jump up ^ Contra Faustum, 22, 27, PL 44,418:
16.Jump up ^ Cf. Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica I-II q. 71 Of Vice and Sin Considered in Themselves
17.Jump up ^ Farrell, p.255-272
18.Jump up ^ Josef Pieper (2001). The Concept of Sin. pp. 60–63.; cf. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica II-IIae q34 a2; I q94 a1; II-IIae q162 a6; I-IIae q72 a2.
19.Jump up ^ Farrell, p. 353
20.Jump up ^ "Vatican lists new sinful behaviors". Associated Press. 2008. Archived from the original on 2008-03-11. Retrieved 2008-03-10.
21.Jump up ^ Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1997: "1867 The catechetical tradition also recalls that there are "sins that cry to heaven": the blood of Abel, the sin of the Sodomites, the cry of the people oppressed in Egypt, the cry of the foreigner, the widow, and the orphan, injustice to the wage earner."
22.Jump up ^ "What Does the Bible Really Teach" pp. 61-63 'Why humans die?'
23.Jump up ^ "What Does the Bible Really Teach" pp. 57-65 'Where are the Dead?'
24.Jump up ^ See On the Incarnation, by St. Athanasius
25.Jump up ^ Barbara E. Reid, Taking Up the Cross: New Testament Interpretations Through Latina and Feminist Eyes (Fortress, 2007), 17-19.
Bibliography[edit]
Mc Guinness, I. Sin (Theology of), in: New Catholic Encyclopaedia, vol. XIII, (reprinted 1981), The Catholic University of America, Washington D.C., pp. 241–245.
Rahner, Karl, Schoonberg, Piet. "Sin", in: Encyclopedia of Theology: A Concise Sacramentum Mundi . (1986) Tunbridge Wells, Kent, UK: Burns & Oates. pp. 1579–1590. ISBN 0-86012-228-X
Farrell, Walter, A companion to the Summa vol. 2 – The Pursuit of Happiness (1985 /reprinted 2nd ed./) Westminster, Maryland - London: Christian Classics, Sheed & Ward, p. 467, ISBN 0-7220-2520-3 (UK) 0-87061-119-4 (USA)
Pieper, Josef, The Concept of Sin,(2001), tranlsated by Edward T. Oakes SJ, South Bend, Indiana: St. Augustines Press; p. 128 ISBN 1-890318-08-6
Pinckaers, Servais, The Sources of Christian Ethics, (trnasl. from French by M. T. Noble O.P.), Washington, D.C., The Catholic University of America Press, 1995. Reprinted: Edinburgh: T&T Clark, ISBN 0-567-29287-8 p. 489
Sabourin, Leopold SJ, Sin, in: The Oxford Companion to the Bible. (1993) Bruce M. Metzger, Michael D. Coogan (ed.) New York - Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504645-5, pp. 696.
External links[edit]
Augustine of Hippo, Confessions
Augustine of Hippo, On Christian Doctrine
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica I-II q71: Of Vice and Sin Considered in Themselves



[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Hamartiology




























[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Seven Deadly Sins































































  



Categories: Christian belief and doctrine
Christian hamartiology
Sin
Christian ethics












Navigation menu




Create account
Log in




Article

Talk












Read

Edit

View history

























Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
Чӑвашла
Français
Bahasa Indonesia
Nederlands
ไทย
Edit links
This page was last modified on 9 April 2015, at 22:05.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
    
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_sin















Jewish views on sin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Judaism regards the violation of any of the 613 commandments as a sin. Judaism teaches that to sin is a part of life, since there is no perfect man and everyone has an inclination to do evil "from his youth".[1][2] Sin has many classifications and degrees. Some sins are punishable with death by the court, others with death by heaven, others with lashes, and others without such punishment, but no sins committed with willful intentions go without consequence. Sins committed out of lack of knowledge are not considered sins, since a sin can't be a sin if the one who did it didn't know it was wrong. Unintentional sins are considered less severe sins.[3][4]
Sins between people are considered much more severe in Judaism than sins between man and God. Yom Kippur, the main day of repentance in Judaism can atones for sins between man and God, but not for sins between man and his fellow, that is until he has appeased his friend.[5][6] Eleazar ben Azariah derived [this from the verse]: "From all your sins before God you shall be cleansed" (Book of Leviticus,16:30) – for sins between man and God Yom Kippur atones, but for sins between man and his fellow Yom Kippur does not atone until he appeases his fellow.[7][8][9]
When the Temple yet stood in Jerusalem, people would offer Karbanot (sacrifices) for their misdeeds. The atoning aspect of karbanot is carefully circumscribed. For the most part, karbanot only expiate unintentional sins, that is, sins committed because a person forgot that this thing was a sin or by error. No atonement is needed for violations committed under duress or through lack of knowledge, and for the most part, karbanot cannot atone for a malicious, deliberate sin. In addition, karbanot have no expiating effect unless the person making the offering sincerely repents of his or her actions before making the offering, and makes restitution to any person who was harmed by the violation.[3][4]
Sins committed willfully cannot be repented of and have a consequence. The completely righteous (means a man who did nothing wrong in his life) enjoy in this life and in the life after. The not completely righteous or completely wicked) suffer for their sins in this world in order to atone for their sins through the humiliation, poverty, and suffering that God sends them. If the repentance is not complete in this world, the suffering will continue in the life after (hell). After the repentance is complete they join the righteous. The completely wicked (a man who did nothing good in his life) cannot correct their sins in this world or in the other, and hence do not suffer for them here, but in gehinom (hell). The very evil do not repent even at the gates of hell. Such people prosper in this world to receive their reward for any good deed, but cannot be cleansed by and hence cannot leave gehinom, because they don't or can't repent. This world can therefore seem unjust where the righteous suffer, while the wicked prosper. Many great thinkers have contemplated this, but God's justice is long, precise and just.[4][10]



Contents  [hide]
1 Hebrew Bible 1.1 Terminology
2 In rabbinical literature
3 Transgression
4 States
5 Role of orthopraxy
6 Sins between man and his fellow
7 Many small sins vs. One big sin
8 Selflessness vs. selfishness
9 Value of repentance 9.1 True repentance
9.2 Atonement in the Temple period
9.3 Liturgical norms
10 See also
11 References

Hebrew Bible[edit]
The first mention of sin as a noun is a zoomorphism, with sin (hattath) crouching at Cain's door. The first as a verb is Abimelech being prevented from sinning (khata) against God in a dream. In fact the whole Tanakh is full of references to sins committed by leading people. This is to teach us that no one is perfect, everyone standing in trials/tests, and the thing is to try your best to learn from their mistakes.
People do have the ability to master this inclination (Genesis 4:7) and choose good over evil (conscience)(Psalm 37:27).[11] Judaism uses the term "sin" to include violations of Jewish law that are not necessarily a lapse in morality. According to the Jewish Encyclopedia: "Man is responsible for sin because he is endowed with free will ("behirah"); yet he is by nature frail, and the tendency of the mind is to evil: "For the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth" (Gen. viii. 21; Yoma 20a; Sanh. 105a). Therefore God in His mercy allowed people to repent and be forgiven."[12] Judaism holds that all people sin at various points in their lives, and hold that God tempers justice with mercy.
Terminology[edit]
Hebrew has several other words for sin beyond hata, each with its own specific meaning. The word pesha, or "trespass", means a sin done out of rebelliousness. The word aveira means "transgression". And the word avone, or "iniquity", means a sin done out of moral failing. The word most commonly translated simply as "sin", hata, literally means "to go astray." Just as Jewish law, halakha provides the proper "way" (or path) to live, sin involves straying from that path.
Judaism teaches that humans are born with free will, and morally neutral, with both a yetzer hatov, (literally, "the good inclination", in some views, a tendency towards goodness, in others, a tendency towards having a productive life and a tendency to be concerned with others) and a yetzer hara, (literally "the evil inclination", in some views, a tendency towards evil, and in others, a tendency towards base or animal behavior and a tendency to be selfish). The yetzer hara in some forms of Judaism means that Satan is merely an idiom or parable, rather than the fallen angel of traditional Christianity.
In rabbinical literature[edit]
Obadiah ben Jacob Sforno suggests that the verse about a leader begins with the term "when," which implies that committing a sin is inevitable because powerful and wealthy people—the leaders—are also likely to sin. This Torah verse concludes with the words "realizes his guilt" (Leviticus 4:22) because it is essential that powerful people acknowledge and feel remorse for their sin, lest they sin again.
Transgression[edit]
The generic Hebrew word for any kind of sin is avera (literally: transgression). Based on verses in the Hebrew Bible, Judaism describes three levels of sin. There are three categories of a person who commits an avera. The first one is someone who does an avera intentionally, or "B'mezid." This is the most serious category. The second is one who did an avera by accident. This is called "B'shogeg," and while the person is still responsible for their action it is considered less serious. The third category is someone who is a "Tinok Shenishba", which is a person who was raised in an environment that was assimilated or non-Jewish, and is not aware of the proper Jewish laws, or halacha. This person is not held accountable for his or her actions.
Pesha (deliberate sin; in modern Hebrew: crime) or Mered (lit.: rebellion) - An intentional sin; an action committed in deliberate defiance of God; (Strong's Concordance :H6588 (פשע pesha', peh'shah). According to Strong it comes from the root (:H6586); rebellion, transgression, trespass.
Avon (lit.: iniquity) - This is a sin of lust or uncontrollable emotion. It is a sin done knowingly, but not done to defy God; (Strong's Concordance :H5771 (avon, aw-vone). According to Strong it comes from the root (:H5753); meaning perversity, moral evil:--fault, iniquity, mischief.
Cheit - This is an unintentional sin, crime or fault. (Strong's Concordance :H2399 (חַטָּא chate). According to Strong it comes from the root khaw-taw (:H2398, H2403) meaning "to miss, to err from the mark (speaking of an archer), to sin, to stumble."
States[edit]
Judaism holds that no human being is perfect, and all people have sinned many times. The Talmud says: "Everyone is responsible to be as great as Moses", But then the Torah tells us in Deuteronomy 34:10 that "No one will ever be as great as Moses". This is to clarify that Moses fulfilled his own personal potential, so too we are expected to fulfill ours. Each person is born with a unique set of talents and tools. Some are rich, others are poor. Some are tall and some are short. One person can sing, another can write, etc. But these qualities are not what determine your greatness. Rather, it's how you deal with your particular circumstances. That's why Judaism says: It's not important where you are on the ladder, but how many rungs you've climbed. The crucial concept is the effort.[13]
The story is told of Zusha, the great Chassidic master, who lay crying on his deathbed. His students asked him, "Rebbe, why are you so sad? After all the mitzvahs and good deeds you have done, you will surely get a great reward in heaven!". "I'm afraid!" said Zusha. "Because when I get to heaven, I know God's not going to ask me 'Why weren't you more like Moses?' or 'Why weren't you more like King David?' But I'm afraid that God will ask 'Zusha, why weren't you more like Zusha?' And then what will I say?!" [13]
Joseph Hertz said that sin is not an evil power whose chains the children of flesh must helplessly drag towards a weary tomb. We can always shake off its yoke; and what is more, we need never assume its yoke. An ancient fable tells us of distant oceans with mountainous rocks of magnet of such terrific power that wreck and ruin befell any ship venturing near them. Instantly the iron nails would fly out of the ship, bolts and fastenings would be torn away by that magnetic force the vessel would become nothing more than so many planks of wood, and all on board fall a prey to the hungry waters. Sins there are that, likewise, unhinge all our stays of character, rob us of the restraints of past habits and education, and leave us helpless playthings on the billows of temptation and passion. Yet a man is the pilot of his life’s barque, and can at all times steer it so as never to come near those mountains of destruction, darkness, and death.[14]
Based on the views of Rabbeinu Tam in the Babylonian Talmud (tractate Rosh HaShanah 17b), God is said to have Thirteen Attributes of Mercy:
1.God is merciful before someone sins, even though God knows that a person is capable of sin.
2.God is merciful to a sinner even after the person has sinned.
3.God represents the power to be merciful even in areas that a human would not expect or deserve.
4.God is compassionate, and eases the punishment of the guilty.
5.God is gracious even to those who are not deserving.
6.God is slow to anger.
7.God is abundant in kindness.
8.God is the God of truth, thus we can count on God's promises to forgive repentant sinners.
9.God guarantees kindness to future generations, as the deeds of the righteous patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) have benefits to all their descendants.
10.God forgives intentional sins if the sinner repents.
11.God forgives a deliberate angering of Him if the sinner repents.
12.God forgives sins that are committed in error.
13.God wipes away the sins from those who repent.
As Jews are commanded in imitatio Dei, emulating God, rabbis take these attributes into account in deciding Jewish law and its contemporary application.
Role of orthopraxy[edit]
Jews recognize two kinds of sin, offenses against other people, and offenses against God. Offenses against God may be understood as violation of a contract (the covenant between God and the Children of Israel). Since the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, Jews have believed that right action (as opposed to right belief) is the way for a person to atone for one's sins. Midrash Avot de Rabbi Natan states the following:
One time, when Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai was walking in Jerusalem with Rabbi Yehosua, they arrived at where the Temple now stood in ruins. "Woe to us" cried Rabbi Yehosua, "for this house where atonement was made for Israel's sins now lies in ruins!" Answered Rabban Yochanan, "We have another, equally important source of atonement, the practice of gemilut hasadim ("loving kindness"), as it is stated "I desire loving kindness and not sacrifice" (Hosea 6:6).
In Judaism all human beings are believed to have free will and can choose the path in life that they will take. It does not teach that choosing good is impossible - only at times more difficult. There is almost always a "way back" if a person wills it. (Although texts mention certain categories for whom the way back will be exceedingly hard, such as the slanderer, the habitual gossip, and the malicious person)
Sins between man and his fellow[edit]
Main article: Sins between man and his fellow(Judaism)
Sins between people are considered much more severe in Judaism then sins between man and God. Yom Kippur, the main day of repent in Judaism can atones for Sins between man and God, but not for Sins between man and his fellow, that is until he has appeased his friend.(Mishnah, Yoma,8:9).[6] Eleazar ben Azariah derived [this from the verse]: "From all your sins before God you shall be cleansed" (Book of Leviticus,16:30) – for sins between man and God Yom Kippur atones, but for sins between man and his fellow Yom Kippur does not atone until he appeases his fellow.[7][8][9]
The Gemara (87a) continues: "R. Yitzchak said: Whoever aggravates his fellow even through words is required to placate him… R. Yosi bar Chanina said: Whoever beseeches forgiveness from his friend should not beseech him more than three times. And if he died, [the offender] brings ten people and must stand them by his grave and he says, "I have sinned against the Lord, the God of Israel, and so-and-so whom I wounded.""
Many small sins vs. One big sin[edit]
Two Jews came to a Chassidic Rabbi to ask advice about sins they had committed. One had committed a great sin for which he was sure God would never forgive him; the other was less worried, because he had never been guilty of anything so grave, but only of the normal collection of lesser sins. The Rabbi told them to go out to a field and select stones corresponding to the size and number of their sins, and later to return to the field and scatter the stones. This done, they came back to the Rabbi. “Now go to the field once more,” he told them both, “pick up the stones you scattered, and bring them to me.”[15]
He who had committed the one big sin knew at once which was his stone, and brought it to the Rabbi. The other, however, had scattered so many little stones that he could not be certain of identifying them again. He had a most difficult time in finding his stones and bringing them to the Rabbi. The Rabbi then told them: “Your deeds are like your stones. You who brought one large stone, committed a grave sin. But you were conscious of what you had done, and with a determined effort at repentance you could be forgiven by God. But you, whose sins were many and small, like those of most human beings, have found how hard it is to catch up with one’s minor lapses. And no repentance of yours can possibly be effective until you realise that small things matter.”[15]
Selflessness vs. selfishness[edit]
See also: Golden mean (Judaism)
The rabbis recognize a positive value to the yetzer hara: one tradition identifies it with the observation on the last day of creation that God's accomplishment was "very good" (God's work on the preceding days was just described as "good") and explain that without the yetzer ha'ra there would be no marriage, children, commerce or other fruits of human labor; the implication is that yetzer ha'tov and yetzer ha'ra are best understood not as moral categories of good and evil but as selfless versus selfish orientations, either of which used rightly can serve God's will.
Or as Hillel the Elder famously summarized the Jewish philosophy:
"If I am not for myself, who will be for me?And when I am for myself, what am 'I'?And if not now, [then] when?"
Another explanation is, without the existence of the yetzer ha'ra, there would be no merit earned in following God's commandments; choice is only meaningful if there has indeed been a choice made. So whereas creation was "good" before, it became "very good" when the evil inclination was added, for then it became possible to truly say that man could make a true choice to obey God's "mitzvot" (commandments). This is because Judaism views the following of God's ways as a desirable end in and of itself rather than a means to an end.
Value of repentance[edit]
See also: Repentance in Judaism
The Babylonian Talmud teaches that "Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Eleazar both explain that as long as the Temple stood, the altar atoned for Israel, but now, one's table atones [when the poor are invited as guests]." (Tractate Berachot, 55a.)
Repentance in itself is also a means of atonement (See Ezekiel 33:11, 33:19, Jeremiah 36:3, etc.) The Hebrew word for repentance is teshuvah which literally means to "return (to God)." The prophet Hosea (14:3) said, "Take with you words, and return to God."
Judaism teaches that our personal relationship with God allows us to turn directly to Him at any time, as Malachi 3:7 says, "Return to Me and I shall return to you," and Ezekiel 18:27, "When the wicked man turns away from his wickedness that he has committed, and does that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive." Additionally, God is extremely compassionate and forgiving as is indicated in Daniel 9:18, "We do not present our supplications before You because of our righteousness, but because of Your abundant mercy."
The traditional liturgy of the Days of Awe (the High Holy Days; i.e. Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur) states that prayer, repentance and tzedakah (charitable actions) are ways to repent for sin. In Judaism, sins committed against people (rather than against God or in the heart) must first be corrected and put right to the best of a person's ability; a sin which has not also been put right as best as possible cannot truly be said to be repented.
True repentance[edit]
To a man who says “I will sin and repent, I will sin and repent,” the Day of Atonement brings no forgiveness. For sins against God the Day of Atonement brings forgiveness; for sins against one’s fellowman, the Day of Atonement brings no forgiveness till he has become reconciled with the fellowman he wronged (Mishnah Yoma 8:9).[15]
According to Maimonides in order to achieve true repentance the sinner must abandon his sin and remove it from his thoughts and resolve in his heart never to repeat it, as it is said, “Let the wicked forsake his way and the man of iniquity his thoughts” (Isaiah 55:7). Likewise must he regret the past, as it is said: “Surely after I turned I repented” (Jer. 31:18). He must also call Him who knows all secrets to witness that he will never return to this sin again.[15]
Atonement in the Temple period[edit]
See also: Repentance in Judaism and Korban
Atonement for sins is discussed in the Hebrew Bible, known to Christians as the Old Testament. Rituals for atonement occurred in the Temple in Jerusalem, and were performed by the Kohanim, the Israelite priests. These services included song, prayer, offerings and animal sacrifices known as the korbanot. The rites for Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, are prescribed in the book of Leviticus chapter 15. The ritual of the scapegoat, sent into the wilderness to be claimed by Azazel, was one of these observances (Lev. 16:20-22).
Liturgical norms[edit]
The liturgy of the Days of Awe (the High Holy Days; i.e. Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur) states that prayer, repentance and tzedakah (the dutiful giving of charity) atone for sin. But prayer cannot atone for wrongs done, without an honest sincere attempt to rectify any wrong done to the best of one's ability, and the sincere intention to avoid repetition. Atonement to Jews means to repent and set aside, and the word "T'shuvah" used for atonement actually means "to return". Judaism is optimistic in that it always sees a way that a determined person may return to what is good, and that God waits for that day too.
A number of animal sacrifices were prescribed in the Torah (five books of Moses) to make atonement: a sin-offering for sins, and a guilt offering for religious trespasses. The significance of animal sacrifice is not expanded on at length in the Torah, though Genesis 9:4 and Leviticus 17 suggest that blood and vitality were linked. Conservative Jews and Christians argue at the present era that the Jews never believed that the aim of all sacrifice is to pay the debt for sins - only the sin offering and the guilt offering had this purpose; modern scholars of early Jewish history, however, often disagree and argue that this division came later.
Later Biblical prophets occasionally make statements to the effect that the hearts of the people were more important than their sacrifices - "Does the LORD delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the voice of the LORD? To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams" (I Samuel 15:22); "For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgement of God rather than burnt offerings" (Hosea 6:6); "The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit, a broken and contrite heart" (Psalm 51:17) (see also Isaiah 1:11, Psalm 40:6-8).
Although the animal sacrifices were prescribed for atonement, there is no place where the Hebrew Bible says that animal sacrifice is the only means of atonement. Hebrew Bible teaches that it is possible to return to God through repentance and prayer alone. For example, in the books of Jonah and Esther, both Jews and gentiles repented, prayed to God and were forgiven for their sins, without having offered any sacrifices.[11] Additionally, in modern times, most Jews do not even consider animal sacrifices.
On the High Holy Days of Rosh Hashana, Yom Kippur - also known as the Day of Atonement-, and the ten-day period between these holidays, repentance of sins committed is based on specialized prayers and hymns, while some Jews continue the ancient methods of sacrifice. An example of a common method of "sacrificing" for the sake of repentance is simply to drop bread into a body of water, to signify the passing of sins and the hope for one to be written into the Book of Life by God once again. This is especially emphasized on what is arguably the holiest Jewish holiday, Yom Kippur.
See also[edit]
Golden mean (Judaism)
Jewish principles of faith#Reward and punishment
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Genesis:8:21 HE
2.Jump up ^ http://www.torah.org/learning/mlife/ch1law1.html
3.^ Jump up to: a b https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/qorbanot.html
4.^ Jump up to: a b c http://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/answers/jewish-polemics/texts/scriptural-studies/leviticus-1711/
5.Jump up ^ Mishnah, Yoma,8:9
6.^ Jump up to: a b http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=9670&st=&pgnum=310
7.^ Jump up to: a b http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0316.htm#30
8.^ Jump up to: a b Simon and Schuster, 1986, Nine Questions People Ask About Judaism, New York: Touchstone book.
9.^ Jump up to: a b http://thetorah.com/historical-uniqueness-and-centrality-of-yom-kippur/
10.Jump up ^ https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0017_0_16693.html
11.^ Jump up to: a b English Handbook of Jews for Judaism
12.Jump up ^ JewishEncyclopedia.com - SIN:
13.^ Jump up to: a b As Great as Moses
14.Jump up ^ http://www.oztorah.com/2013/09/penitence-prayer-charity-an-anthology-for-rosh-hashanah-yom-kippur/
15.^ Jump up to: a b c d Rabbi Raymond Apple originally appeared in booklet form as Penitence, Prayer & Charity: An anthology for Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, published by the Publications Committee of the United Synagogue, London, 1970
  



Categories: Jewish belief and doctrine
Sin



Navigation menu




Create account
Log in




Article

Talk












Read

Edit

View history

























Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
Italiano
Edit links
This page was last modified on 3 June 2015, at 00:13.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
    
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_sin















Jewish views on sin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Judaism regards the violation of any of the 613 commandments as a sin. Judaism teaches that to sin is a part of life, since there is no perfect man and everyone has an inclination to do evil "from his youth".[1][2] Sin has many classifications and degrees. Some sins are punishable with death by the court, others with death by heaven, others with lashes, and others without such punishment, but no sins committed with willful intentions go without consequence. Sins committed out of lack of knowledge are not considered sins, since a sin can't be a sin if the one who did it didn't know it was wrong. Unintentional sins are considered less severe sins.[3][4]
Sins between people are considered much more severe in Judaism than sins between man and God. Yom Kippur, the main day of repentance in Judaism can atones for sins between man and God, but not for sins between man and his fellow, that is until he has appeased his friend.[5][6] Eleazar ben Azariah derived [this from the verse]: "From all your sins before God you shall be cleansed" (Book of Leviticus,16:30) – for sins between man and God Yom Kippur atones, but for sins between man and his fellow Yom Kippur does not atone until he appeases his fellow.[7][8][9]
When the Temple yet stood in Jerusalem, people would offer Karbanot (sacrifices) for their misdeeds. The atoning aspect of karbanot is carefully circumscribed. For the most part, karbanot only expiate unintentional sins, that is, sins committed because a person forgot that this thing was a sin or by error. No atonement is needed for violations committed under duress or through lack of knowledge, and for the most part, karbanot cannot atone for a malicious, deliberate sin. In addition, karbanot have no expiating effect unless the person making the offering sincerely repents of his or her actions before making the offering, and makes restitution to any person who was harmed by the violation.[3][4]
Sins committed willfully cannot be repented of and have a consequence. The completely righteous (means a man who did nothing wrong in his life) enjoy in this life and in the life after. The not completely righteous or completely wicked) suffer for their sins in this world in order to atone for their sins through the humiliation, poverty, and suffering that God sends them. If the repentance is not complete in this world, the suffering will continue in the life after (hell). After the repentance is complete they join the righteous. The completely wicked (a man who did nothing good in his life) cannot correct their sins in this world or in the other, and hence do not suffer for them here, but in gehinom (hell). The very evil do not repent even at the gates of hell. Such people prosper in this world to receive their reward for any good deed, but cannot be cleansed by and hence cannot leave gehinom, because they don't or can't repent. This world can therefore seem unjust where the righteous suffer, while the wicked prosper. Many great thinkers have contemplated this, but God's justice is long, precise and just.[4][10]



Contents  [hide]
1 Hebrew Bible 1.1 Terminology
2 In rabbinical literature
3 Transgression
4 States
5 Role of orthopraxy
6 Sins between man and his fellow
7 Many small sins vs. One big sin
8 Selflessness vs. selfishness
9 Value of repentance 9.1 True repentance
9.2 Atonement in the Temple period
9.3 Liturgical norms
10 See also
11 References

Hebrew Bible[edit]
The first mention of sin as a noun is a zoomorphism, with sin (hattath) crouching at Cain's door. The first as a verb is Abimelech being prevented from sinning (khata) against God in a dream. In fact the whole Tanakh is full of references to sins committed by leading people. This is to teach us that no one is perfect, everyone standing in trials/tests, and the thing is to try your best to learn from their mistakes.
People do have the ability to master this inclination (Genesis 4:7) and choose good over evil (conscience)(Psalm 37:27).[11] Judaism uses the term "sin" to include violations of Jewish law that are not necessarily a lapse in morality. According to the Jewish Encyclopedia: "Man is responsible for sin because he is endowed with free will ("behirah"); yet he is by nature frail, and the tendency of the mind is to evil: "For the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth" (Gen. viii. 21; Yoma 20a; Sanh. 105a). Therefore God in His mercy allowed people to repent and be forgiven."[12] Judaism holds that all people sin at various points in their lives, and hold that God tempers justice with mercy.
Terminology[edit]
Hebrew has several other words for sin beyond hata, each with its own specific meaning. The word pesha, or "trespass", means a sin done out of rebelliousness. The word aveira means "transgression". And the word avone, or "iniquity", means a sin done out of moral failing. The word most commonly translated simply as "sin", hata, literally means "to go astray." Just as Jewish law, halakha provides the proper "way" (or path) to live, sin involves straying from that path.
Judaism teaches that humans are born with free will, and morally neutral, with both a yetzer hatov, (literally, "the good inclination", in some views, a tendency towards goodness, in others, a tendency towards having a productive life and a tendency to be concerned with others) and a yetzer hara, (literally "the evil inclination", in some views, a tendency towards evil, and in others, a tendency towards base or animal behavior and a tendency to be selfish). The yetzer hara in some forms of Judaism means that Satan is merely an idiom or parable, rather than the fallen angel of traditional Christianity.
In rabbinical literature[edit]
Obadiah ben Jacob Sforno suggests that the verse about a leader begins with the term "when," which implies that committing a sin is inevitable because powerful and wealthy people—the leaders—are also likely to sin. This Torah verse concludes with the words "realizes his guilt" (Leviticus 4:22) because it is essential that powerful people acknowledge and feel remorse for their sin, lest they sin again.
Transgression[edit]
The generic Hebrew word for any kind of sin is avera (literally: transgression). Based on verses in the Hebrew Bible, Judaism describes three levels of sin. There are three categories of a person who commits an avera. The first one is someone who does an avera intentionally, or "B'mezid." This is the most serious category. The second is one who did an avera by accident. This is called "B'shogeg," and while the person is still responsible for their action it is considered less serious. The third category is someone who is a "Tinok Shenishba", which is a person who was raised in an environment that was assimilated or non-Jewish, and is not aware of the proper Jewish laws, or halacha. This person is not held accountable for his or her actions.
Pesha (deliberate sin; in modern Hebrew: crime) or Mered (lit.: rebellion) - An intentional sin; an action committed in deliberate defiance of God; (Strong's Concordance :H6588 (פשע pesha', peh'shah). According to Strong it comes from the root (:H6586); rebellion, transgression, trespass.
Avon (lit.: iniquity) - This is a sin of lust or uncontrollable emotion. It is a sin done knowingly, but not done to defy God; (Strong's Concordance :H5771 (avon, aw-vone). According to Strong it comes from the root (:H5753); meaning perversity, moral evil:--fault, iniquity, mischief.
Cheit - This is an unintentional sin, crime or fault. (Strong's Concordance :H2399 (חַטָּא chate). According to Strong it comes from the root khaw-taw (:H2398, H2403) meaning "to miss, to err from the mark (speaking of an archer), to sin, to stumble."
States[edit]
Judaism holds that no human being is perfect, and all people have sinned many times. The Talmud says: "Everyone is responsible to be as great as Moses", But then the Torah tells us in Deuteronomy 34:10 that "No one will ever be as great as Moses". This is to clarify that Moses fulfilled his own personal potential, so too we are expected to fulfill ours. Each person is born with a unique set of talents and tools. Some are rich, others are poor. Some are tall and some are short. One person can sing, another can write, etc. But these qualities are not what determine your greatness. Rather, it's how you deal with your particular circumstances. That's why Judaism says: It's not important where you are on the ladder, but how many rungs you've climbed. The crucial concept is the effort.[13]
The story is told of Zusha, the great Chassidic master, who lay crying on his deathbed. His students asked him, "Rebbe, why are you so sad? After all the mitzvahs and good deeds you have done, you will surely get a great reward in heaven!". "I'm afraid!" said Zusha. "Because when I get to heaven, I know God's not going to ask me 'Why weren't you more like Moses?' or 'Why weren't you more like King David?' But I'm afraid that God will ask 'Zusha, why weren't you more like Zusha?' And then what will I say?!" [13]
Joseph Hertz said that sin is not an evil power whose chains the children of flesh must helplessly drag towards a weary tomb. We can always shake off its yoke; and what is more, we need never assume its yoke. An ancient fable tells us of distant oceans with mountainous rocks of magnet of such terrific power that wreck and ruin befell any ship venturing near them. Instantly the iron nails would fly out of the ship, bolts and fastenings would be torn away by that magnetic force the vessel would become nothing more than so many planks of wood, and all on board fall a prey to the hungry waters. Sins there are that, likewise, unhinge all our stays of character, rob us of the restraints of past habits and education, and leave us helpless playthings on the billows of temptation and passion. Yet a man is the pilot of his life’s barque, and can at all times steer it so as never to come near those mountains of destruction, darkness, and death.[14]
Based on the views of Rabbeinu Tam in the Babylonian Talmud (tractate Rosh HaShanah 17b), God is said to have Thirteen Attributes of Mercy:
1.God is merciful before someone sins, even though God knows that a person is capable of sin.
2.God is merciful to a sinner even after the person has sinned.
3.God represents the power to be merciful even in areas that a human would not expect or deserve.
4.God is compassionate, and eases the punishment of the guilty.
5.God is gracious even to those who are not deserving.
6.God is slow to anger.
7.God is abundant in kindness.
8.God is the God of truth, thus we can count on God's promises to forgive repentant sinners.
9.God guarantees kindness to future generations, as the deeds of the righteous patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) have benefits to all their descendants.
10.God forgives intentional sins if the sinner repents.
11.God forgives a deliberate angering of Him if the sinner repents.
12.God forgives sins that are committed in error.
13.God wipes away the sins from those who repent.
As Jews are commanded in imitatio Dei, emulating God, rabbis take these attributes into account in deciding Jewish law and its contemporary application.
Role of orthopraxy[edit]
Jews recognize two kinds of sin, offenses against other people, and offenses against God. Offenses against God may be understood as violation of a contract (the covenant between God and the Children of Israel). Since the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, Jews have believed that right action (as opposed to right belief) is the way for a person to atone for one's sins. Midrash Avot de Rabbi Natan states the following:
One time, when Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai was walking in Jerusalem with Rabbi Yehosua, they arrived at where the Temple now stood in ruins. "Woe to us" cried Rabbi Yehosua, "for this house where atonement was made for Israel's sins now lies in ruins!" Answered Rabban Yochanan, "We have another, equally important source of atonement, the practice of gemilut hasadim ("loving kindness"), as it is stated "I desire loving kindness and not sacrifice" (Hosea 6:6).
In Judaism all human beings are believed to have free will and can choose the path in life that they will take. It does not teach that choosing good is impossible - only at times more difficult. There is almost always a "way back" if a person wills it. (Although texts mention certain categories for whom the way back will be exceedingly hard, such as the slanderer, the habitual gossip, and the malicious person)
Sins between man and his fellow[edit]
Main article: Sins between man and his fellow(Judaism)
Sins between people are considered much more severe in Judaism then sins between man and God. Yom Kippur, the main day of repent in Judaism can atones for Sins between man and God, but not for Sins between man and his fellow, that is until he has appeased his friend.(Mishnah, Yoma,8:9).[6] Eleazar ben Azariah derived [this from the verse]: "From all your sins before God you shall be cleansed" (Book of Leviticus,16:30) – for sins between man and God Yom Kippur atones, but for sins between man and his fellow Yom Kippur does not atone until he appeases his fellow.[7][8][9]
The Gemara (87a) continues: "R. Yitzchak said: Whoever aggravates his fellow even through words is required to placate him… R. Yosi bar Chanina said: Whoever beseeches forgiveness from his friend should not beseech him more than three times. And if he died, [the offender] brings ten people and must stand them by his grave and he says, "I have sinned against the Lord, the God of Israel, and so-and-so whom I wounded.""
Many small sins vs. One big sin[edit]
Two Jews came to a Chassidic Rabbi to ask advice about sins they had committed. One had committed a great sin for which he was sure God would never forgive him; the other was less worried, because he had never been guilty of anything so grave, but only of the normal collection of lesser sins. The Rabbi told them to go out to a field and select stones corresponding to the size and number of their sins, and later to return to the field and scatter the stones. This done, they came back to the Rabbi. “Now go to the field once more,” he told them both, “pick up the stones you scattered, and bring them to me.”[15]
He who had committed the one big sin knew at once which was his stone, and brought it to the Rabbi. The other, however, had scattered so many little stones that he could not be certain of identifying them again. He had a most difficult time in finding his stones and bringing them to the Rabbi. The Rabbi then told them: “Your deeds are like your stones. You who brought one large stone, committed a grave sin. But you were conscious of what you had done, and with a determined effort at repentance you could be forgiven by God. But you, whose sins were many and small, like those of most human beings, have found how hard it is to catch up with one’s minor lapses. And no repentance of yours can possibly be effective until you realise that small things matter.”[15]
Selflessness vs. selfishness[edit]
See also: Golden mean (Judaism)
The rabbis recognize a positive value to the yetzer hara: one tradition identifies it with the observation on the last day of creation that God's accomplishment was "very good" (God's work on the preceding days was just described as "good") and explain that without the yetzer ha'ra there would be no marriage, children, commerce or other fruits of human labor; the implication is that yetzer ha'tov and yetzer ha'ra are best understood not as moral categories of good and evil but as selfless versus selfish orientations, either of which used rightly can serve God's will.
Or as Hillel the Elder famously summarized the Jewish philosophy:
"If I am not for myself, who will be for me?And when I am for myself, what am 'I'?And if not now, [then] when?"
Another explanation is, without the existence of the yetzer ha'ra, there would be no merit earned in following God's commandments; choice is only meaningful if there has indeed been a choice made. So whereas creation was "good" before, it became "very good" when the evil inclination was added, for then it became possible to truly say that man could make a true choice to obey God's "mitzvot" (commandments). This is because Judaism views the following of God's ways as a desirable end in and of itself rather than a means to an end.
Value of repentance[edit]
See also: Repentance in Judaism
The Babylonian Talmud teaches that "Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Eleazar both explain that as long as the Temple stood, the altar atoned for Israel, but now, one's table atones [when the poor are invited as guests]." (Tractate Berachot, 55a.)
Repentance in itself is also a means of atonement (See Ezekiel 33:11, 33:19, Jeremiah 36:3, etc.) The Hebrew word for repentance is teshuvah which literally means to "return (to God)." The prophet Hosea (14:3) said, "Take with you words, and return to God."
Judaism teaches that our personal relationship with God allows us to turn directly to Him at any time, as Malachi 3:7 says, "Return to Me and I shall return to you," and Ezekiel 18:27, "When the wicked man turns away from his wickedness that he has committed, and does that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive." Additionally, God is extremely compassionate and forgiving as is indicated in Daniel 9:18, "We do not present our supplications before You because of our righteousness, but because of Your abundant mercy."
The traditional liturgy of the Days of Awe (the High Holy Days; i.e. Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur) states that prayer, repentance and tzedakah (charitable actions) are ways to repent for sin. In Judaism, sins committed against people (rather than against God or in the heart) must first be corrected and put right to the best of a person's ability; a sin which has not also been put right as best as possible cannot truly be said to be repented.
True repentance[edit]
To a man who says “I will sin and repent, I will sin and repent,” the Day of Atonement brings no forgiveness. For sins against God the Day of Atonement brings forgiveness; for sins against one’s fellowman, the Day of Atonement brings no forgiveness till he has become reconciled with the fellowman he wronged (Mishnah Yoma 8:9).[15]
According to Maimonides in order to achieve true repentance the sinner must abandon his sin and remove it from his thoughts and resolve in his heart never to repeat it, as it is said, “Let the wicked forsake his way and the man of iniquity his thoughts” (Isaiah 55:7). Likewise must he regret the past, as it is said: “Surely after I turned I repented” (Jer. 31:18). He must also call Him who knows all secrets to witness that he will never return to this sin again.[15]
Atonement in the Temple period[edit]
See also: Repentance in Judaism and Korban
Atonement for sins is discussed in the Hebrew Bible, known to Christians as the Old Testament. Rituals for atonement occurred in the Temple in Jerusalem, and were performed by the Kohanim, the Israelite priests. These services included song, prayer, offerings and animal sacrifices known as the korbanot. The rites for Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, are prescribed in the book of Leviticus chapter 15. The ritual of the scapegoat, sent into the wilderness to be claimed by Azazel, was one of these observances (Lev. 16:20-22).
Liturgical norms[edit]
The liturgy of the Days of Awe (the High Holy Days; i.e. Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur) states that prayer, repentance and tzedakah (the dutiful giving of charity) atone for sin. But prayer cannot atone for wrongs done, without an honest sincere attempt to rectify any wrong done to the best of one's ability, and the sincere intention to avoid repetition. Atonement to Jews means to repent and set aside, and the word "T'shuvah" used for atonement actually means "to return". Judaism is optimistic in that it always sees a way that a determined person may return to what is good, and that God waits for that day too.
A number of animal sacrifices were prescribed in the Torah (five books of Moses) to make atonement: a sin-offering for sins, and a guilt offering for religious trespasses. The significance of animal sacrifice is not expanded on at length in the Torah, though Genesis 9:4 and Leviticus 17 suggest that blood and vitality were linked. Conservative Jews and Christians argue at the present era that the Jews never believed that the aim of all sacrifice is to pay the debt for sins - only the sin offering and the guilt offering had this purpose; modern scholars of early Jewish history, however, often disagree and argue that this division came later.
Later Biblical prophets occasionally make statements to the effect that the hearts of the people were more important than their sacrifices - "Does the LORD delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the voice of the LORD? To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams" (I Samuel 15:22); "For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgement of God rather than burnt offerings" (Hosea 6:6); "The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit, a broken and contrite heart" (Psalm 51:17) (see also Isaiah 1:11, Psalm 40:6-8).
Although the animal sacrifices were prescribed for atonement, there is no place where the Hebrew Bible says that animal sacrifice is the only means of atonement. Hebrew Bible teaches that it is possible to return to God through repentance and prayer alone. For example, in the books of Jonah and Esther, both Jews and gentiles repented, prayed to God and were forgiven for their sins, without having offered any sacrifices.[11] Additionally, in modern times, most Jews do not even consider animal sacrifices.
On the High Holy Days of Rosh Hashana, Yom Kippur - also known as the Day of Atonement-, and the ten-day period between these holidays, repentance of sins committed is based on specialized prayers and hymns, while some Jews continue the ancient methods of sacrifice. An example of a common method of "sacrificing" for the sake of repentance is simply to drop bread into a body of water, to signify the passing of sins and the hope for one to be written into the Book of Life by God once again. This is especially emphasized on what is arguably the holiest Jewish holiday, Yom Kippur.
See also[edit]
Golden mean (Judaism)
Jewish principles of faith#Reward and punishment
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Genesis:8:21 HE
2.Jump up ^ http://www.torah.org/learning/mlife/ch1law1.html
3.^ Jump up to: a b https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/qorbanot.html
4.^ Jump up to: a b c http://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/answers/jewish-polemics/texts/scriptural-studies/leviticus-1711/
5.Jump up ^ Mishnah, Yoma,8:9
6.^ Jump up to: a b http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=9670&st=&pgnum=310
7.^ Jump up to: a b http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0316.htm#30
8.^ Jump up to: a b Simon and Schuster, 1986, Nine Questions People Ask About Judaism, New York: Touchstone book.
9.^ Jump up to: a b http://thetorah.com/historical-uniqueness-and-centrality-of-yom-kippur/
10.Jump up ^ https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0017_0_16693.html
11.^ Jump up to: a b English Handbook of Jews for Judaism
12.Jump up ^ JewishEncyclopedia.com - SIN:
13.^ Jump up to: a b As Great as Moses
14.Jump up ^ http://www.oztorah.com/2013/09/penitence-prayer-charity-an-anthology-for-rosh-hashanah-yom-kippur/
15.^ Jump up to: a b c d Rabbi Raymond Apple originally appeared in booklet form as Penitence, Prayer & Charity: An anthology for Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, published by the Publications Committee of the United Synagogue, London, 1970
  



Categories: Jewish belief and doctrine
Sin



Navigation menu




Create account
Log in




Article

Talk












Read

Edit

View history

























Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
Italiano
Edit links
This page was last modified on 3 June 2015, at 00:13.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
    
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_sin














Conservative Christianity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Conservative Christianity or Christian conservative may refer to:
Religion[edit]
One of a number of theological movements Christian fundamentalism, a movement within Protestantism upholding a literal reading of the Bible
Conservative evangelicalism, a conservative branch of evangelicalism
British Conservative Evangelicalism, a theological movement within Evangelical Protestant Christianity
The Confessing Movement, an Evangelical movement within several mainline Protestant denominations
The Traditionalist Catholic movement, Roman Catholics who believe that the Catholic Church has strayed from its doctrine since the Second Vatican Council
Confessionalism (religion), a belief in the importance of full and unambiguous assent to the whole of a religious teaching

Politics[edit]
The Christian right in U.S. politics, Christian political groups that are characterized by their strong support of socially conservative policies
Christian Conservative Party, a political party in Norway
Conservative Christian Party – BPF, a political party in Belarus
See also[edit]
Conservatism
Conservative Islam
Conservative Judaism
Liberal Christianity
Progressive Christianity
Disambiguation icon This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the title Conservative Christianity.
If an internal link led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article.
  



Categories: Disambiguation pages
Christian terminology







Navigation menu




Create account
Log in




Article

Talk












Read

Edit

View history

























Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
Dansk
日本語
Norsk bokmål
Svenska
Edit links
This page was last modified on 10 December 2014, at 16:22.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
  

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Christianity














Conservative Christianity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Conservative Christianity or Christian conservative may refer to:
Religion[edit]
One of a number of theological movements Christian fundamentalism, a movement within Protestantism upholding a literal reading of the Bible
Conservative evangelicalism, a conservative branch of evangelicalism
British Conservative Evangelicalism, a theological movement within Evangelical Protestant Christianity
The Confessing Movement, an Evangelical movement within several mainline Protestant denominations
The Traditionalist Catholic movement, Roman Catholics who believe that the Catholic Church has strayed from its doctrine since the Second Vatican Council
Confessionalism (religion), a belief in the importance of full and unambiguous assent to the whole of a religious teaching

Politics[edit]
The Christian right in U.S. politics, Christian political groups that are characterized by their strong support of socially conservative policies
Christian Conservative Party, a political party in Norway
Conservative Christian Party – BPF, a political party in Belarus
See also[edit]
Conservatism
Conservative Islam
Conservative Judaism
Liberal Christianity
Progressive Christianity
Disambiguation icon This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the title Conservative Christianity.
If an internal link led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article.
  



Categories: Disambiguation pages
Christian terminology







Navigation menu




Create account
Log in




Article

Talk












Read

Edit

View history

























Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
Dansk
日本語
Norsk bokmål
Svenska
Edit links
This page was last modified on 10 December 2014, at 16:22.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
  

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Christianity














Evangelicalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Conservative evangelicalism)
Jump to: navigation, search

Not to be confused with evangelism.
"Evangelical" redirects here. For other uses, see Evangelical (disambiguation).
Part of a series on
Christianity
Jesus depicted as the Good Shepherd



Jesus ·
 Christ
 [show]











Bible ·
 Foundations
 [show]














Theology[show]

























History ·
 Tradition
 [show]























Related topics[show]




















Denominations ·
 Groups
 [show]









































Christian cross Christianity portal
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Evangelicalism, Evangelical Christianity, or Evangelical Protestantism[a] is a worldwide, transdenominational movement within Protestant Christianity, maintaining that the essence of the gospel consists in the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ's atonement.[1][2]
Evangelicals are Christians who believe in the centrality of the conversion or "born again" experience in receiving salvation, believe in the authority of the Bible as God's revelation to humanity and have a strong commitment to evangelism or sharing the Christian message.
It gained great momentum in the 18th and 19th centuries with the emergence of Methodism and the Great Awakenings in Britain and North America. The origins of Evangelicalism are usually traced back to the English Methodist movement, Nicolaus Zinzendorf, the Moravian Church, Lutheran pietism, Presbyterianism and Puritanism.[3] Among leaders and major figures of the Evangelical Protestant movement were John Wesley, George Whitefield, Jonathan Edwards, Billy Graham, Harold John Ockenga, John Stott and Martyn Lloyd-Jones.
There are an estimated 285,480,000 Evangelicals, corresponding to 13.1% of the Christian population and 4.1% of the total world population. The Americas, Africa and Asia are home to the majority of Evangelicals. The United States has the largest concentration of Evangelicals.[4] Evangelicalism is gaining popularity both in and outside the English-speaking world, especially in Latin America and the developing world.



Contents  [hide]
1 Usage
2 Characteristics
3 Diversity 3.1 Fundamentalism
3.2 Mainstream varieties
3.3 Non-conservative varieties
4 History 4.1 Background
4.2 18th century
4.3 19th century
4.4 20th century
5 Global statistics
6 Africa
7 Latin America 7.1 Brazil
7.2 Guatemala
8 Asia 8.1 Korea
9 United Kingdom
10 United States 10.1 20th century
10.2 Meaning of Evangelicalism in the US
10.3 Demographics
10.4 Types of Evangelical
10.5 Politics 10.5.1 Christian right
10.5.2 Christian left
10.6 Recurrent themes 10.6.1 Abortion
10.6.2 Secularism
10.6.3 Christian nation
10.6.4 Media references
10.6.5 Other issues

11 See also
12 Footnotes
13 Notes
14 Bibliography
15 Further reading 15.1 Missions
16 External links

Usage[edit]
The word evangelical has its etymological roots in the Greek word for "gospel" or "good news": ε’υαγγέλιον (evangelion), from eu- "good" and angelion "message". By the English Middle Ages the term had expanded semantically to include not only the message, but also the New Testament which contained the message, as well as more specifically the Gospels which portray the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.[5] The first published use of evangelical in English came in 1531 when William Tyndale wrote "He exhorteth them to proceed constantly in the evangelical truth." One year later Sir Thomas More produced the earliest recorded use in reference to a theological distinction when he spoke of "Tyndale [and] his evangelical brother Barns".[6]
During the Reformation, Protestant theologians embraced the label as referring to "gospel truth". Martin Luther referred to the evangelische Kirche ("evangelical church) to distinguish Protestants from Catholics in the Roman Catholic Church.[7][8] Into the 21st century, evangelical has continued in used as a synonym for (mainline) Protestant in continental Europe. This usage is reflected in the names of Protestant denominations such as the Evangelical Church in Germany (a union of Lutheran and Reformed churches) and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.[5]
In the English-speaking world, evangelical became a common label used to describe the series of revival movements that occurred in Britain and North America during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.[9] Christian historian David Bebbington writes that, "Although 'evangelical', with a lower-case initial, is occasionally used to mean 'of the gospel', the term 'Evangelical', with a capital letter, is applied to any aspect of the movement beginning in the 1730s."[10] The term may also occur outside any religious context to characterize a generic missionary, reforming, or redeeming impulse or purpose. For example, the Times Literary Supplement refers to "the rise and fall of evangelical fervor within the Socialist movement".[11]
Characteristics[edit]
One influential definition of Evangelicalism has been proposed by historian David Bebbington.[12] Bebbington notes four distinctive aspects of Evangelical faith: conversionism, biblicism, crucicentrism, and activism, noting, "Together they form a quadrilateral of priorities that is the basis of Evangelicalism."[13]
Conversionism, or belief in the necessity of being "born again", has been a constant theme of Evangelicalism since its beginnings. To Evangelicals, the central message of the gospel is justification by faith in Christ and repentance, or turning away, from sin. Conversion differentiates the Christian from the non-Christian, and the change in life it leads to is marked by both a rejection of sin and a corresponding personal holiness of life. A conversion experience can be emotional, including grief and sorrow for sin followed by great relief at receiving forgiveness. The stress on conversion is further differentiated from other forms of Protestantism by the belief that an assurance of salvation will accompany conversion. Among Evangelicals, individuals have testified to both sudden and gradual conversions.[14]
Biblicism is defined as having a reverence for the Bible and a high regard for biblical authority. All Evangelicals believe in biblical inspiration, though they disagree over how this inspiration should be defined. Many Evangelicals believe in biblical inerrancy, while other Evangelicals believe in biblical infallibility.[15]
Crucicentrism refers to the attention that Evangelicals give to the Atonement, the saving death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, that offers forgiveness of sins and new life. This is understood most commonly in terms of a substitutionary atonement, in which Christ died as a substitute for sinful humanity by taking on himself the guilt and punishment for sin.[16]
Activism describes the tendency towards active expression and sharing of the gospel in diverse ways that include preaching and social action. This aspect of Evangelicalism continues to be seen today in the proliferation of Evangelical voluntary religious groups and parachurch organizations.[17]
Diversity[edit]

Protestantism



95Thesen.jpg
(The Ninety-Five Theses)

The Reformation

History

Culture

Major branches
Adventism
Anabaptism
Anglicanism
Baptist churches
Calvinism (Reformed tradition)
Lutheranism
Methodism
Pentecostalism
Other Protestant branches

Transdenominational movements
Evangelicalism
Charismatic Movement
Neo-charismatic churches

v ·
 t ·
 e
   
As a trans-denominational movement, Evangelicalism occurs in nearly every Protestant denomination and tradition. The Reformed, Baptist, Wesleyan, and Pentecostal traditions have all had strong influence within modern Evangelicalism.[18] Evangelicals are also represented within the Anabaptist, Anglican and Lutheran traditions.[19]
The early 20th century saw the decline of Evangelical influence within mainline Protestantism and the development of Christian fundamentalism as a distinct religious movement. The second half of the century witnessed the development of a new mainstream Evangelical consensus that sought to be more inclusive and more culturally relevant than fundamentalism, while maintaining conservative Protestant teaching. According to professor of world Christianity Brian Stanley, this new postwar consensus is termed "Neo-Evangelicalism", the "New Evangelicalism", or simply "Evangelicalism" in the United States, while in the United Kingdom and in other English-speaking countries it is commonly termed conservative Evangelicalism. Over the years, less conservative Evangelicals have challenged this mainstream consensus to varying degrees, and such movements have been described by a variety of labels, such as progressive, open, post-conservative, and post-evangelical.[20]
Fundamentalism[edit]
Fundamentalism regards biblical inerrancy, the virgin birth of Jesus, penal substitutionary atonement, the literal resurrection of Christ and the Second Coming of Christ as fundamental Christian doctrines.[21] Fundamentalism arose among Evangelicals in the 1920s to combat modernist or liberal theology in Mainline Protestant churches. Failing to reform the Mainline churches, fundamentalists separated from them and established their own churches, refusing to participate in ecumenical organizations such as the National Council of Churches. They also made separatism (rigid separation from non-fundamentalist churches and culture) a true test of faith. According to historian George Marsden, most fundamentalists are Baptists and dispensationalist.[22]
Mainstream varieties[edit]
Mainstream Evangelicalism is historically divided between two main orientations: confessionalism and revivalism. These two streams have been critical of each other. Confessional Evangelicals have been suspicious of unguarded religious experience, while revivalist Evangelicals have been critical of overly intellectual teaching that (they suspect) stifles vibrant spirituality.[23] In an effort to broaden their appeal, many contemporary Evangelical congregations intentionally avoid identifying with any single form of Evangelicalism. These "generic Evangelicals" are usually theologically and socially conservative, but their churches often present themselves as nondenominational within the broader Evangelical movement.[24]
In the words of Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, confessional Evangelicalism refers to "that movement of Christian believers who seek a constant convictional continuity with the theological formulas of the Protestant Reformation". While approving of the Evangelical distinctives proposed by Bebbington, confessional Evangelicals believe that authentic Evangelicalism requires more concrete definition in order to protect the movement from theological liberalism and from heresy. This protection, according to confessional Evangelicals, is found in subscription to the ecumenical creeds and to the Reformation-era confessions of faith (such as the confessions of the Reformed churches).[25] Confessional Evangelicals are represented by conservative Presbyterian churches, certain Baptist churches that emphasize historic Baptist confessions like the Second London Confession, Anglicans who emphasize the Thirty-Nine Articles (such as in the Anglican Diocese of Sydney, Australia[26]), and confessional Lutherans who identify with the Evangelical movement.[19]
The emphasis on historic Protestant orthodoxy among confessional Evangelicals stands in direct contrast to an anti-creedal outlook that has exerted its own influence on Evangelicalism, particularly among churches heavily influenced by revivalism and by pietism. Revivalist Evangelicals are represented by some quarters of Methodism, the Wesleyan Holiness churches, the Pentecostal/charismatic churches, some Anabaptist churches, and some Baptists and Presbyterians.[19] Revivalist Evangelicals tend to place greater emphasis on religious experience than their confessional counterparts.[23]
Non-conservative varieties[edit]
Evangelicals dissatisfied with the movement's conservative mainstream have been variously described as progressive Evangelicals, post-conservative Evangelicals, Open Evangelicals and Post-evangelicals. Progressive Evangelicals, also known as the Evangelical left, share theological or social views with other progressive Christians, while also identifying with Evangelicalism. Progressive Evangelicals commonly advocate for women's equality, pacifism and social justice.[27]
As described by Baptist theologian Roger E. Olson, post-conservative Evangelicalism is a theological school of thought that adheres to the four marks of Evangelicalism, while being less rigid and more inclusive of other Christians. According to Olson, post-conservatives believe that doctrine and propositional truth is secondary to spiritual experience shaped by Scripture. Post-conservative Evangelicals seek greater dialogue with other Christian traditions and support the development of a multicultural Evangelical theology that incorporates the voices of women, racial minorities, and Christians in the developing world. Some post-conservative Evangelicals also support Open Theism and the possibility of near universal salvation.[28]
The term "Open Evangelical" refers to a particular Christian school of thought or churchmanship, primarily in the United Kingdom (especially in the Church of England). Open Evangelicals describe their position as combining a traditional Evangelical emphasis on the nature of scriptural authority, the teaching of the ecumenical creeds and other traditional doctrinal teachings, with an approach towards culture and other theological points-of-view which tends to be more inclusive than that taken by other Evangelicals. Some Open Evangelicals aim to take a middle position between conservative and charismatic Evangelicals, while others would combine conservative theological emphases with more liberal social positions.[29]
British author Dave Tomlinson coined the phrase "post-evangelical" to describe a movement comprising various trends of dissatisfaction among Evangelicals. Others use the term with comparable intent, often to distinguish Evangelicals in the so-called emerging church movement from post-evangelicals and anti-Evangelicals. Tomlinson argues that "linguistically, the distinction [between evangelical and post-evangelical] resembles the one that sociologists make between the modern and postmodern eras".[30]
History[edit]
Background[edit]
Evangelicalism did not take recognizable form until the 18th century, first in Britain and its North American colonies. Nevertheless, there were earlier developments within the larger Protestant world that preceded and influenced the later evangelical revivals. According to religion scholar, social activist, and politician Randall Balmer, Evangelicalism resulted "from the confluence of Pietism, Presbyterianism, and the vestiges of Puritanism. Evangelicalism picked up the peculiar characteristics from each strain – warmhearted spirituality from the Pietists (for instance), doctrinal precisionism from the Presbyterians, and individualistic introspection from the Puritans".[31] Historian Mark Noll adds to this list High Church Anglicanism, which contributed to Evangelicalism a legacy of "rigorous spirituality and innovative organization".[32]
During the 17th century, Pietism emerged in Europe as a movement for the revival of piety and devotion within the Lutheran church. As a protest against "cold orthodoxy" or an overly formal and rational Christianity, Pietists advocated for an experiential religion that stressed high moral standards for both clergy and lay people. The movement included both Christians who remained in the liturgical, state churches as well as separatist groups who rejected the use of baptismal fonts, altars, pulpits, and confessionals. As Pietism spread, the movement's ideals and aspirations influenced and were absorbed into early Evangelicalism.[33]
The Presbyterian heritage not only gave Evangelicalism a commitment to Protestant orthodoxy but also contributed a revival tradition that stretched back to the 1620s in Scotland and Northern Ireland.[34] Central to this tradition was the communion season, which normally occurred in the summer months. For Presbyterians, celebrations of Holy Communion were infrequent but popular events preceded by several Sundays of preparatory preaching and accompanied with preaching, singing, and prayers.[35]
Puritanism combined Calvinism with teaching that conversion was a prerequisite for church membership and a stress on the study of Scripture by lay people. It took root in New England, where the Congregational church was an established religion. The Half-Way Covenant of 1662 allowed parents who had not testified to a conversion experience to have their children baptized, while reserving Holy Communion for converted church members alone.[36] By the 18th century, Puritanism was in decline and many ministers were alarmed at the loss of religious piety. This concern over declining religious commitment led many people to support evangelical revival.[37]
High Church Anglicanism also exerted influence on early Evangelicalism. High Churchmen were distinguished by their desire to adhere to primitive Christianity. This desire included imitating the faith and ascetic practices of early Christians as well as regularly partaking of Holy Communion. High Churchmen were also enthusiastic organizers of voluntary religious societies. Two of the most prominent were the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, which distributed Bibles and other literature and built schools, and the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts, which was created to facilitate missionary work in British colonies. Samuel and Susanna Wesley, the parents of John and Charles Wesley, were both devoted advocates of High Churchmanship.[38]
18th century[edit]



 Jonathan Edwards' account of the revival in Northampton was published in 1737 as A Faithful Narrative of the Surprising Work of God in the Conversion of Many Hundred Souls in Northampton.
In the 1730s, Evangelicalism emerged as a distinct phenomenon out of religious revivals that began in Britain and New England. While religious revivals had occurred within Protestant churches in the past, the evangelical revivals that marked the 18th century were more intense and radical.[39] Evangelical revivalism imbued ordinary men and women with a confidence and enthusiasm for sharing the gospel and converting others outside of the control of established churches, a key discontinuity with the Protestantism of the previous era.[40]
It was developments in the doctrine of assurance that differentiated Evangelicalism from what went before. Bebbington says, "The dynamism of the Evangelical movement was possible only because its adherents were assured in their faith."[41] He goes on:

Whereas the Puritans had held that assurance is rare, late and the fruit of struggle in the experience of believers, the Evangelicals believed it to be general, normally given at conversion and the result of simple acceptance of the gift of God. The consequence of the altered form of the doctrine was a metamorphosis in the nature of popular Protestantism. There was a change in patterns of piety, affecting devotional and practical life in all its departments. The shift, in fact, was responsible for creating in Evangelicalism a new movement and not merely a variation on themes heard since the Reformation."[42]
The first local revival occurred in Northampton, Massachusetts, under the leadership of Congregationalist minister Jonathan Edwards. In the fall of 1734, Edwards preached a sermon series on "Justification By Faith Alone", and the community's response was extraordinary. Signs of religious commitment among the laity increased, especially among the town's young people. The revival ultimately spread to 25 communities in western Massachusetts and central Connecticut until it began to wane by the spring of 1735.[43] Edwards was heavily influenced by Pietism, so much so that one historian has stressed his "American Pietism." [44] One practice clearly copied from European Pietists was the use of small groups divided by age and gender, which met in private homes to conserve and promote the fruits of revival.[45]
At the same time, students at Yale University (at that time Yale College) in New Haven, Connecticut, were also experiencing revival. Among them was Aaron Burr, who would become a prominent Presbyterian minister and future president of Princeton University. In New Jersey, Gilbert Tennent, another Presbyterian minister, was preaching the evangelical message and urging the Presbyterian Church to stress the necessity of converted ministers.[46]
The spring of 1735 also marked important events in England and Wales. Howell Harris, a Welsh schoolteacher, had a conversion experience on May 25 during a communion service. He described receiving assurance of God's grace after a period of fasting, self-examination, and despair over his sins.[47] Sometime later, Daniel Rowland, the Anglican curate of Llangeitho, Wales, experienced conversion as well. Both men began preaching the evangelical message to large audiences, becoming leaders of the Welsh Methodist revival.[48] At about the same time that Harris experienced conversion in Wales, George Whitefield was converted at Oxford University after his own prolonged spiritual crisis. Whitefield later remarked, "About this time God was pleased to enlighten my soul, and bring me into the knowledge of His free grace, and the necessity of being justified in His sight by faith only".[49]



John Wesley preaching
Whitefield's fellow Holy Club member and spiritual mentor, Charles Wesley, reported an evangelical conversion in 1738.[48] In the same week, Charles' brother and future founder of Methodism, John Wesley was also converted after a long period of inward struggle. During this spiritual crisis, John Wesley was directly influenced by Pietism. Two years before his conversion, Wesley had traveled to the newly established colony of Georgia as a missionary for the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. He shared his voyage with a group of Moravian Brethren led by August Gottlieb Spangenberg. The Moravians' faith and piety deeply impressed Wesley, especially their belief that it was a normal part of Christian life to have an assurance of one's salvation.[50] Wesley recounted the following exchange with Spangenberg on February 7, 1736:

[Spangenberg] said, "My brother, I must first ask you one or two questions. Have you the witness within yourself? Does the Spirit of God bear witness with your spirit that you are a child of God?" I was surprised, and knew not what to answer. He observed it, and asked, "Do you know Jesus Christ?" I paused, and said, "I know he is the Savior of the world." "True," he replied, "but do you know he has saved you?" I answered, "I hope he has died to save me." He only added, "Do you know yourself?" I said, "I do." But I fear they were vain words.[51]
Wesley finally received the assurance he had been searching for at a meeting of a religious society in London. While listening to a reading from Martin Luther's preface to the Epistle to the Romans, Wesley felt spiritually transformed:

About a quarter before nine, while [the speaker] was describing the change which God works in the heart through faith in Christ, I felt my heart strangely warmed. I felt I did trust in Christ, Christ alone for salvation, and an assurance was given me that he had taken away my sins, even mine, and saved me from the law of sin and death.[52]
Pietism continued to influence Wesley, who had translated 33 Pietist hymns from German to English. Numerous German Pietist hymns became part of the English Evangelical repertoire.[53]
By 1737, Whitefield had become a national celebrity in England where his preaching drew large crowds, especially in London.[54] Whitfield joined forces with Edwards to "fan the flame of revival" in the Thirteen Colonies in 1739–40. Soon the First Great Awakening stirred Protestants up and down the Thirteen Colonies.[48]
Evangelical preachers emphasized personal salvation and piety more than ritual and tradition. Pamphlets and printed sermons crisscrossed the Atlantic, encouraging the revivalists.[55] The Awakening resulted from powerful preaching that gave listeners a sense of deep personal revelation of their need of salvation by Jesus Christ. Pulling away from ritual and ceremony, the Great Awakening made Christianity intensely personal to the average person by fostering a deep sense of spiritual conviction and redemption, and by encouraging introspection and a commitment to a new standard of personal morality. It reached people who were already church members. It changed their rituals, their piety and their self-awareness. To the evangelical imperatives of Reformation Protestantism, 18th century American Christians added emphases on divine outpourings of the Holy Spirit and conversions that implanted within new believers an intense love for God. Revivals encapsulated those hallmarks and forwarded the newly created Evangelicalism into the early republic.[56]
19th century[edit]
The start of the 19th century saw an increase in missionary work and many of the major missionary societies were founded around this time (see Timeline of Christian missions). Both the Evangelical and high church movements sponsored missionaries.
The Second Great Awakening (which actually began in 1790) was primarily an American revivalist movement and resulted in substantial growth of the Methodist and Baptist churches. Charles Grandison Finney was an important preacher of this period.



William Wilberforce, British evangelical abolitionist
In Britain in addition to stressing the traditional Wesleyan combination of "Bible, cross, conversion, and activism," the revivalist movement sought a universal appeal, hoping to include rich and poor, urban and rural, and men and women. Special efforts were made to attract children and to generate literature to spread the revivalist message.[57]
"Christian conscience" was used by the British Evangelical movement to promote social activism. Evangelicals believed activism in government and the social sphere was an essential method in reaching the goal of eliminating sin in a world drenched in wickedness.[58] The Evangelicals in the Clapham Sect included figures such as William Wilberforce who successfully campaigned for the abolition of slavery.
In the late 19th century, the revivalist Holiness movement, based on the doctrine of "entire sanctification," took a more extreme form in rural America and Canada, where it ultimately broke away from institutional Methodism. In urban Britain the Holiness message was less exclusive and censorious.[59]
John Nelson Darby was a 19th-century Irish Anglican minister who devised modern dispensationalism, an innovative Protestant theological interpretation of the Bible that was incorporated in the development of modern Evangelicalism. Cyrus Scofield further promoted the influence of dispensationalism through the explanatory notes to his Scofield Reference Bible. According to scholar Mark S. Sweetnam, who takes a cultural studies perspective, dispensationalism can be defined in terms of its Evangelicalism, its insistence on the literal interpretation of Scripture, its recognition of stages in God's dealings with humanity, its expectation of the imminent return of Christ to rapture His saints, and its focus on both apocalypticism and premillennialism.[60]
Notable figures of the latter half of the 19th century include Charles Spurgeon in London and Dwight L. Moody in Chicago. Their powerful preaching reached very large audiences.[61][62]
An advanced theological perspective came from the Princeton theologians from the 1850s to the 1920s, such as Charles Hodge, Archibald Alexander and B.B. Warfield.[63]
20th century[edit]



 Services at the Pentecostal Church of God in Lejunior, Kentucky, 1946
Evangelicalism in the early part of the 20th century was dominated by the Fundamentalist movement after 1910; it rejected liberal theology and emphasized the inerrancy of the Scriptures.
Following the Welsh Revival, the Azusa Street Revival in 1906 began the spread of Pentecostalism in North America.
In the post–World War II period, a split developed between Evangelicals, as they disagreed among themselves about how a Christian ought to respond to an unbelieving world. Many Evangelicals urged that Christians must engage the culture directly and constructively,[64][page needed] and they began to express reservations about being known to the world as fundamentalists. As Kenneth Kantzer put it at the time, the name fundamentalist had become "an embarrassment instead of a badge of honor".[65]
The term neo-evangelicalism was coined by Harold Ockenga in 1947 to identify a distinct movement within self-identified fundamentalist Christianity at the time, especially in the English-speaking world. It described the mood of positivism and non-militancy that characterized that generation. The new generation of Evangelicals set as their goal to abandon a militant Bible stance. Instead, they would pursue dialogue, intellectualism, non-judgmentalism, and appeasement. They further called for an increased application of the gospel to the sociological, political, and economic areas.
The self-identified fundamentalists also cooperated in separating their "neo-Evangelical" opponents from the fundamentalist name, by increasingly seeking to distinguish themselves from the more open group, whom they often characterized derogatorily by Ockenga's term, "neo-Evangelical" or just Evangelical.



 The evangelical revivalist Billy Graham in Duisburg, Germany, 1954
The fundamentalists saw the Evangelicals as often being too concerned about social acceptance and intellectual respectability, and being too accommodating to a perverse generation that needed correction. In addition, they saw the efforts of evangelist Billy Graham, who worked with non-Evangelical denominations, such as the Roman Catholics (which they claimed to be heretical), as a mistake.[citation needed]
The post-war period also saw growth of the ecumenical movement and the founding of the World Council of Churches, which was generally regarded with suspicion by the Evangelical community.[citation needed]
In the United Kingdom, John Stott and Martyn Lloyd-Jones emerged as key leaders in Evangelical Christianity.
The charismatic movement began in the 1960s and resulted in Pentecostal theology and practice being introduced into many mainline denominations. New charismatic groups such as the Association of Vineyard Churches and Newfrontiers trace their roots to this period (see also British New Church Movement).
The closing years of the 20th century saw controversial postmodern influences entering some parts of Evangelicalism, particularly with the emerging church movement.[clarification needed]
Global statistics[edit]



 Chinese evangelical church in Madrid, Spain
According to a 2011 Pew Forum study on global Christianity, 285,480,000 or 13.1 percent of all Christians are Evangelicals.[66] The largest concentration of Evangelicals can be found in the United States, with 26.8% of the U.S. population or 94.38 million,[67] the latter being roughly one third of the world's Evangelicals.[4] The next most populous is Brazil, with 26.3% or 51.33 million.[67]
The World Evangelical Alliance is "a network of churches in 129 nations that have each formed an evangelical alliance and over 100 international organizations joining together to give a world-wide identity, voice, and platform to more than 600 million evangelical Christians".[68] The Alliance was formed in 1951 by Evangelicals from 21 countries. It has worked to support its members to work together globally.
The World Christian Database estimates the number of Evangelicals at 300 million, Pentecostals and Charismatics at 600 million and "Great Commission" Christians at 700 million. These groups are not mutually exclusive. Operation World estimates the number of Evangelicals at 550 million.[69]
From 1960 to 2000, the global growth of the number of reported Evangelicals grew three times the world's population rate, and twice that of Islam.[70]
Africa[edit]
In the 21st century, there are Evangelical churches active in Sudan, Angola, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Malawi, Rwanda, Uganda, Ghana, Kenya, Zambia, South Africa, and Nigeria. They have grown especially since independence came in the 1960s,[71] the strongest movements are based on Pentecostal-charismatic[clarification needed] beliefs, and comprise a way of life that has led to upward social mobility[dubious – discuss] and demands for democracy.[citation needed] There is a wide range of theology and organizations, including some sponsored by European missionaries and others that have emerged from African culture[dubious – discuss] such as the Apostolic and Zionist Churches which enlist 40% of black South Africans, and their Aladura counterparts in western Africa.[72][page needed]
In Nigeria the Evangelical Church Winning All (formerly "Evangelical Church of West Africa") is the largest church organization with five thousand congregations and over three million members. It sponsors two seminaries and eight Bible colleges, and 1600 missionaries who serve in Nigeria and other countries with the Evangelical Missionary Society (EMS). There have been serious confrontations since 1999 between Muslims and Evangelical Christians standing in opposition to the expansion of Sharia law in northern Nigeria. The confrontation has radicalized and politicized the Christians. Violence has been escalating.[73]
In Kenya, mainstream Evangelical denominations have taken the lead[dubious – discuss] in promoting political activism and backers, with the smaller Evangelical sects of less importance. Daniel arap Moi was president 1978 to 2002 and claimed to be an Evangelical; he proved intolerant of dissent or pluralism or decentralization of power.[74]
The Berlin Missionary Society (BMS) was one of four German Protestant mission societies active in South Africa before 1914. It emerged from the German tradition of Pietism after 1815 and sent its first missionaries to South Africa in 1834. There were few positive reports in the early years, but it was especially active 1859–1914. It was especially strong in the Boer republics. The World War cut off contact with Germany, but the missions continued at a reduced pace. After 1945 the missionaries had to deal with decolonisation across Africa and especially with the apartheid government. At all times the BMS emphasized spiritual inwardness, and values such as morality, hard work and self-discipline. It proved unable to speak and act decisively against injustice and racial discrimination and was disbanded in 1972.[75]
Since 1974, young professionals have been the active proselytizers of Evangelicalism in the cities of Malawi.[76]
In Mozambique, Evangelical Protestant Christianity emerged around 1900 from black migrants whose converted previously in South Africa. They were assisted by European missionaries, but, as industrial workers, they paid for their own churches and proselytizing. They prepared southern Mozambique for the spread of Evangelical Protestantism. During its time as a colonial power in Mozambique, the Catholic Portuguese government tried to counter the spread of Evangelical Protestantism.[77]
Latin America[edit]
In modern Latin America, the word "Evangelical" is often simply a synonym for "Protestant".[78][79][80]
Brazil[edit]



Universal Church of the Kingdom of God church in São Paulo
Main article: Protestantism in Brazil
Protestantism in Brazil largely originated with German immigrants and British and American missionaries in the 19th century, following up on efforts that began in the 1820s.[81]
In the late nineteenth century, while the vast majority of Brazilians were nominal Catholics, the nation was underserved by priests, and for large numbers their religion was only nominal. The Catholic Church in Brazil was de-established in 1890, and responded by increasing the number of dioceses and the efficiency of its clergy. Many Protestants came from a large German immigrant community, but they were seldom engaged in proselytism and grew mostly by natural increase.
Methodists were active along with Presbyterians and Baptists. The Scottish missionary Dr. Robert Reid Kalley, with support from the Free Church of Scotland, moved to Brazil in 1855, founding the first Evangelical church among the Portuguese-speaking population there in 1856. It was organized according to the Congregational policy as the Igreja Evangélica Fluminense; it became the mother church of Congregationalism in Brazil.[82] The Seventh-day Adventists arrived in 1894, and the YMCA was organized in 1896. The missionaries promoted schools colleges and seminaries, including a liberal arts college in São Paulo, later known as Mackenzie, and an agricultural school in Lavras. The Presbyterian schools in particular later became the nucleus of the governmental system. In 1887 Protestants in Rio de Janeiro formed a hospital. The missionaries largely reached a working-class audience, as the Brazilian upper-class was wedded either to Catholicism or to secularism. By 1914, Protestant churches founded by American missionaries had 47,000 communicants, served by 282 missionaries. In general, these missionaries were more successful than they had been in Mexico, Argentina or elsewhere in Latin America.[83]
There were 700,000 Protestants by 1930, and increasingly they were in charge of their own affairs. In 1930, the Methodist Church of Brazil became independent of the missionary societies and elected its own bishop. Protestants were largely from a working-class, but their religious networks help speed their upward social mobility.[84][85]
Protestants accounted for fewer than 5% of the population until the 1960s, but grew exponentially by proselytizing and by 2000 made up over 15% of Brazilians affiliated with a church. Pentecostals and charismatic groups account for the vast majority of this expansion.
Pentecostal missionaries arrived early in the 20th century. Pentecostal conversions surged during the 1950s and 1960s, when native Brazilians began founding autonomous churches. The most influential included Brasil Para o Cristo (Brazil for Christ), founded in 1955 by Manoel de Mello. With an emphasis on personal salvation, on God's healing power, and on strict moral codes these groups have developed broad appeal, particularly among the booming urban migrant communities. In Brazil, since the mid-1990's, groups committed to uniting black identity, antiracism, and Evangelical theology have rapidly proliferated.[86] Pentecostalism arrived in Brazil with Swedish and American missionaries in 1911. it grew rapidly, but endured numerous schisms and splits. In some areas the Evangelical Assemblies of God churches have taken a leadership role in politics since the 1960s. They claimed major credit for the election of Fernando Collor de Mello as president of Brazil in 1990.[87]
According to the 2000 Census, 15.4% of the Brazilian population was Protestant. A recent research conducted by the Datafolha institute shows that 25% of Brazilians are Protestants, of which 19% are followers of Pentecostal denominations. The 2010 Census found out that 22.2% were Protestant at that date. Protestant denominations saw a rapid growth in their number of followers since the last decades of the 20th century.[88] They are politically and socially conservative, and emphasize that God's favor translates into business success.[89] The rich and the poor remained traditional Catholics, while most Evangelical Protestants were in the new lower-middle class–known as the "C class" (in a A–E classification system).[90]
Chesnut argues that Pentecostalism has become "one of the principal organizations of the poor," for these churches provide the sort of social network that teach members the skills they need to thrive in a rapidly developing meritocratic society.[91]
One large Evangelical church is the Universal Church of the Kingdom of God (IURD), a neo‐Pentecostal denomination begun in 1977. It now has a presence in many countries, and claims millions of members worldwide.[92]
Guatemala[edit]
Protestants remained a small portion of the population until the late-twentieth century, when various Protestant groups experienced a demographic boom that coincided with the increasing violence of the Guatemalan Civil War. Two Guatemalan heads of state, General Efraín Ríos Montt and Jorge Serrano Elias, have been practicing Evangelical Protestants. They are the only two Protestant heads of state in the history of Latin America.[93][94]
General Efrain Rios Montt, an Evangelical from the Pentecostal tradition, came to power through a coup. He escalated the war against leftist guerrilla insurgents as a holy war against atheistic forces of evil.[95]
Asia[edit]
Korea[edit]
Main article: Christianity in Korea
Protestant missionary proselytism in Asia was most successful in Korea. American Presbyterians and Methodists arrived in the 1880s and were well received. Between 1907 and 1945, when Korea was a Japanese colony, Christianity became in part an expression of nationalism in opposition to Japan's efforts to promote the Japanese language and the Shinto religion.[96] In 1914, out of 16 million people, there were 86,000 Protestants and 79,000 Catholics; by 1934, the numbers were 168,000 and 147,000. Presbyterian missionaries were especially successful.[97] Since the Korean War (1950–53), many Korean Christians have migrated to the U.S., while those who remained behind have risen sharply in social and economic status. Most Korean Protestant churches in the 21st century emphasize their Evangelical heritage. Korean Protestantism is characterized by theological conservatism[clarification needed] coupled with an emotional revivalistic[clarification needed] style. Most churches sponsor revival meetings once or twice a year. Missionary work is a high priority, with 13,000 men and women serving in missions across the world, putting Korea in second place just behind the US.[98]
Sukman argues that since 1945, Protestantism has been widely seen by Koreans as the religion of the middle class, youth, intellectuals, urbanites, and modernists. It has been a powerful force[dubious – discuss] supporting South Korea's pursuit of modernity and emulation[dubious – discuss] of the United States, and opposition to the old Japanese colonialism and to the authoritarianism of North Korea.[99] There are 8.6 million adherents to Protestant Christianity (approximately 19% of the Korean population) in which many[quantify] identify themselves as Evangelicals.
South Korea has been referred as an "evangelical superpower" for being the home to some of the largest and most dynamic Christian churches in the world; South Korea is also second to the U.S. in the number of missionaries sent abroad.[100][101][102]
United Kingdom[edit]
There are an estimated 2 million Evangelicals in the UK.[103] According to research performed by the Evangelical Alliance in 2013, 87% of UK evangelicals attend Sunday morning church services every week and 63% attend weekly or fortnightly small groups.[104] An earlier survey conducted in 2012 found that 92% of evangelicals agree it is a Christian's duty to help those in poverty and 45% attend a church which has a fund or scheme that helps people in immediate need, and 42% go to a church that supports or runs a foodbank. 63% believe a tithing, and so give around 10% of their income to their church, Christian organisations and various charities[105] 83% of UK evangelicals believe that the Bible has supreme authority in guiding their beliefs, views and behaviour and 52% read or listen to the Bible daily.[106] The Evangelical Alliance, formed in 1846, was the first ecumenical evangelical body in the world and works to unite evangelicals, helping them listen to, and be heard by, the government, media and society.
United States[edit]
The contemporary North American usage of the term reflects the impact of the Fundamentalist–Modernist Controversy of the early 20th century. Evangelicalism may sometimes be perceived as the middle ground between the theological liberalism of the mainline denominations and the cultural separatism of fundamentalism.[107] Evangelicalism has therefore been described as "the third of the leading strands in American Protestantism, straddl[ing] the divide between fundamentalists and liberals".[108] In 2004 Andrew Crouch wrote in Christianity Today: "The emerging movement is a protest against much of evangelicalism as currently practiced. It is post-evangelical in the way that neo-evangelicalism (in the 1950s) was post-fundamentalist. It would not be unfair to call it postmodern evangelicalism."[109]
While the North American perception has a certain importance in understanding some usage of the term, it by no means dominates a wider global view: elsewhere the fundamentalist debate had less direct influence.
D.W. Cloud wrote: "In the first half of the 20th century, evangelicalism in America was largely synonymous with fundamentalism. George Marsden in Reforming Fundamentalism (1995) writes, "There was not a practical distinction between fundamentalist and evangelical: the words were interchangeable" (p. 48). When the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) formed in 1942, for example, participants included such fundamentalist leaders as Bob Jones, Sr., John R. Rice, Charles Woodbridge, Harry Ironside, and David Otis Fuller."[110]
By the mid-1950s, largely due to the ecumenical evangelism of Billy Graham, the terms Evangelicalism and fundamentalism began to refer to two different approaches. Fundamentalism aggressively attacked its liberal enemies; Evangelicalism downplayed liberalism and emphasized outreach and conversion of new members.[111]
While some conservative Evangelicals[which?] believe the label has broadened too much beyond its more limiting traditional distinctives, this trend is nonetheless strong enough to create significant ambiguity in the term.[112] As a result, the dichotomy between "Evangelical" and "mainline" denominations is increasingly complex, particularly with such innovations as the "emergent church" movement.
20th century[edit]
By the 1890s, most American Protestants belonged to Evangelical denominations, except for the high church Episcopalians and German Lutherans. In the early 20th century, a divide opened up between the Fundamentalists and the Mainline Protestant denominations, chiefly over the inerrancy of the Bible. The fundamentalists were those Evangelicals who sought to defend their religious traditions, and feared that modern scientific leanings were leading away from the truth. A favored mode of fighting back was to prohibit the teaching of Darwinism or macro-evolution as fact in the public schools, a movement that reached its peak in the Scopes Trial of 1925, and resumed in the 1980s. The more modernistic Protestants largely abandoned the term "evangelical" and tolerated evolutionary theories in modern science and even in Biblical studies.
Evangelicals held the view that the modernist and liberal parties in the Protestant churches had surrendered their heritage as Evangelicals by accommodating the views and values of secularism. At the same time, the modernists criticized fundamentalists for their separatism and their rejection of the Social Gospel.
During and after World War II, Evangelicals increasingly organized, and expanded their vision to include the entire world. There was a great expansion of Evangelical activity within the United States, "a revival of revivalism." Youth for Christ was formed; it later became the base for Billy Graham's revivals. The National Association of Evangelicals formed in 1942 as a counterpoise to the mainline Federal Council of Churches. In 1942–43, the Old-Fashioned Revival Hour had a record-setting national radio audience.[113][page needed]
Even more dramatic was the expansion of international missionary activity by the Evangelicals. They had enthusiasm and self-confidence after the national victory in the world war. Many Evangelicals came from poor rural districts, but wartime and postwar prosperity dramatically increased the funding resources available for missionary work. While mainline Protestant denominations cut back on their missionary activities, from 7000 to 3000 overseas workers between 1935 and 1980, the Evangelicals increased their career foreign missionary force from 12,000 in 1935 to 35,000 in 1980. Meanwhile Europe was falling behind, as North Americans comprised 41% of all the world's Protestant missionaries in 1936, rising to 52% in 1952 and 72% in 1969. The most active denominations were the Assemblies of God, which nearly tripled from 230 missionaries in 1935 to 626 in 1952, and the United Pentecostal Church International, formed in 1945. The Southern Baptists more than doubled from 405 to 855, as did the Church of the Nazarene from 88 to 200.[114] Overseas missionaries began to prepare for the postwar challenge, most notably the Far Eastern Gospel Crusade (FEGC; now named "Send International"). After Nazi Germany and fascist Japan had been destroyed, the newly mobilized Evangelicals were now prepared to combat atheistic communism, secularism, Darwinism, liberalism, Catholicism, and (in overseas missions) paganism.[115]
Meaning of Evangelicalism in the US[edit]
The Institute for the Study of American Evangelicals states:

There are three senses in which the term "evangelical" is used today at the beginning of the 21st-century. The first is to view "evangelical" as all Christians who affirm a few key doctrines and practical emphases. British historian David Bebbington approaches evangelicalism from this direction and notes four specific hallmarks of evangelical religion: conversionism, the belief that lives need to be changed; activism, the expression of the gospel in effort; biblicism, a particular regard for the Bible; and crucicentrism, a stress on the sacrifice of Christ on the cross.
A second sense is to look at evangelicalism as an organic group of movements and religious tradition. Within this context "evangelical" denotes a style as much as a set of beliefs. As a result, groups such as black Baptists and Dutch Reformed Churches, Mennonites and Pentecostals, Catholic charismatics and Southern Baptists all come under the evangelical umbrella, thus demonstrating just how diverse the movement really is.
A third sense of the term is as the self-ascribed label for a coalition that arose during the Second World War. This group came into being as a reaction against the perceived anti-intellectual, separatist, belligerent nature of the fundamentalist movement in the 1920s and 1930s. Importantly, its core personalities (like Harold John Ockenga and Billy Graham), institutions (for instance, Moody Bible Institute and Wheaton College), and organizations (such as the National Association of Evangelicals and Youth for Christ) have played a pivotal role in giving the wider movement a sense of cohesion that extends beyond these "card-carrying" evangelicals.[116]
Demographics[edit]



 An event at Gateway Church's 114 Southlake Campus
The 2004 survey of religion and politics in the United States identified the Evangelical percentage of the population at 26.3 percent while Roman Catholics are 22 percent and mainline Protestants make up 16 percent.[117] In the 2007 Statistical Abstract of the United States, the figures for these same groups are 28.6 percent (Evangelical), 24.5 percent (Roman Catholic), and 13.9 percent (mainline Protestant.) The latter figures are based on a 2001 study of the self-described religious identification of the adult population for 1990 and 2001 from the Graduate School and University Center at the City University of New York.[118] A 2008 study showed that in the year 2000 about 9 percent of Americans attended an Evangelical service on any given Sunday.[119][120] The Economist estimated in May 2012, that "over one-third of Americans, more than 100 M, can be considered evangelical," arguing that the percentage is often undercounted because many black Christians espouse Evangelical theology but prefer to refer to themselves as "born again Christians" rather than "evangelical."[121] These estimated figures given by The Economist agree with those in 2012 from Wheaton College's Institute for the Studies of American Evangelicals.[4]
The movement is highly diverse and encompasses a vast number of people. Because the group is diverse, not all of them use the same terminology for beliefs. For instance, several recent studies and surveys by sociologists and political scientists that utilize more complex definitional parameters have estimated the number of Evangelicals in the U.S. in 2012 at about 30–35% of the population, or roughly between 90 and 100 million people.[4]
The National Association of Evangelicals is a U.S. agency which coordinates cooperative ministry for its member denominations.
Types of Evangelical[edit]
John C. Green, a senior fellow at the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, used polling data to separate Evangelicals into three camps, which he labels as traditionalist, centrist and modernist:[107]
1.Traditionalists, characterized by high affinity for certain Protestant beliefs, (especially penal substitutionary atonement, justification by faith, the authority of scripture, the priesthood of all believers, etc.) which, when fused with the highly political milieu of Western culture (especially American culture), has resulted in the political disposition that has been labeled the Christian right, with figures like Jerry Falwell and the television evangelist Pat Robertson as its most visible spokesmen.
2.Centrist evangelicals, described as socially conservative, mostly avoiding politics, who still support much of traditional Christian theology.
3.Modernist evangelicals, a small minority in the movement, have low levels of church-attendance and "have much more diversity in their beliefs".[107]
Politics[edit]
Christian right[edit]
Main article: Christian right
Evangelical political influence in America was first evident in the 1830s with movements such as abolition of slavery and the prohibition movement, which closed saloons and taverns in state after state until it succeeded nationally in 1919.[122] The Christian right is a coalition of numerous groups of traditionalist and observant church-goers of every kind: especially Catholics on issues such as birth control and abortion, Southern Baptists, Missouri Synod Lutherans and others.[123]
Evangelical political activists are not all on the right. There is a small group of liberal white Evangelicals.[124] Most African Americans belong to Baptist, Methodist or other denominations that share Evangelical beliefs; they are firmly in the Democratic coalition and (except for gay and abortion issues) are generally liberal in politics.[125]
Christian left[edit]
Main article: Evangelical left



 This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (December 2014)
The evangelical left or progressive evangelicals are Christians aligned with evangelicalism in the United States who generally function on the left wing of the movement, either politically or theologically or both. While the evangelical left is related to the wider Christian left, those who are part of the latter category are not always viewed as evangelical.
Typically, members of the evangelical left affirm the primary tenets of evangelical theology, such as the doctrines of the Incarnation, atonement, and resurrection, and also see the Bible as a primary authority for the Church. Unlike many evangelicals, however, those on the evangelical left support what are often considered progressive or left wing political policies. They are often, for example, opposed to capital punishment and supportive of gun control and welfare programs. In many cases, they are also pacifists. Theologically they also often support and utilize modern biblical criticism, whereas more conservative evangelicals reject it. Some promote the legalization of same-sex marriage or protection of access to abortion for the society at large without necessarily endorsing the practice themselves.
There is considerable dispute over how to even characterize the various segments of the evangelical theological and political spectra, and whether a singular discernible rift between "right" and "left" is oversimplified. However, to the extent that some simplifications are necessary to discuss any complex issue, it is recognized that modern trends like focusing on non-contentious issues (like poverty) and downplaying hot-button social issues (like abortion) tend to be key distinctives of the modern "evangelical left" or "emergent church" movement.
While members of the evangelical left chiefly reside in mainline denominations, they are often heavily influenced by the Anabaptist social tradition.
Recurrent themes[edit]
Abortion[edit]
Since 1980, a central issue motivating conservative Evangelicals' political activism is abortion. The 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade by the Supreme Court, which legalized abortion, proved decisive in bringing together Catholics and Evangelicals in a political coalition, which became known as the Religious Right when it successfully mobilized its voters behind presidential candidate Ronald Reagan in 1980.[126]
Secularism[edit]
In the United States, Supreme Court decisions that outlawed organized prayer in school and restricted church-related schools also played a role in mobilizing the Religious Right.[127] In addition, questions of sexual morality and homosexuality have been energizing factors—and above all, the notion that "elites" are pushing America into secularism.
Christian nation[edit]
Opponents criticise the Evangelicals, whom they say actually want a Christian America—America being a nation in which Christianity is given a privileged position.[128] Survey data shows that "between 64 and 75 percent do not favor a 'Christian Nation' amendment", though between 60 and 75 percent also believe that Christianity and Political Liberalism are incompatible.[129] Evangelical leaders, in turn, counter that they merely seek freedom from the imposition by national elites of an equally subjective secular worldview, and feel that it is their opponents who are violating their rights.[130]
Media references[edit]
Many films offer differing views on evangelical, End Times and Rapture culture. One that offers a revealing view of the mindset of the Calvinist and premillennial dispensationalist element in evangelicalism is "Good People Go to Hell, Saved People Go to Heaven."[131]
Other issues[edit]

Unbalanced scales.svg
 The neutrality of this section is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (May 2013)
According to recent reports in the New York Times, some Evangelicals have sought to expand their movement's social agenda to include poverty, combating AIDS in the Third World, and protecting the environment.[132] This is highly contentious within the Evangelical community, since more conservative Evangelicals believe that this trend is compromising important issues and prioritizing popularity and consensus too highly. Personifying this division were the Evangelical leaders James Dobson and Rick Warren, the former who warned of the dangers of a Barack Obama victory in 2008 from his point of view,[133] in contrast with the latter who declined to endorse either major candidate on the grounds that he wanted the church to be less politically divisive and that he agreed substantially with both men.[134]
See also[edit]
10/40 Window
Biblical literalism
Broad church
Child evangelism movement
Christian eschatological views
Conservative Evangelicalism in Britain
Evangelical Council of Venezuela
Evangelical Fellowship of Canada
Fundamentalism
List of evangelical Christians
List of evangelical seminaries and theological colleges
National Association of Evangelicals
Pure Land Buddhism, in some important respects a parallel Buddhist tradition
World Evangelical Alliance
Footnotes[edit]
a.Jump up ^ Primarily in the United States, where Protestants are usually placed in one of two categories - Mainline or Evangelical.
Notes[edit]
1.Jump up ^ The Concise Oxford Dictionary. Oxford University Press. 1978.
2.Jump up ^ Operation World
3.Jump up ^ Christianity report
4.^ Jump up to: a b c d How Many Evangelicals Are There?, Wheaton College: Institute for the Study of American Evangelicals
5.^ Jump up to: a b Noll 2004, pp. 16.
6.Jump up ^ Johnson, Phil (2009-03-16). "The History of Evangelicalism". Pulpit Magazine. Part 1.
7.Jump up ^ Livingstone, Elizabeth A (2005). The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (3rd ed. rev ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 583. ISBN 0-19-280290-9.
8.Jump up ^ Gerstner, John H. (1975). "The Theological Boundaries of Evangelical Faith". In David P. Wells. The Evangelicals. John D. Woodbridge. Nashville: Abingdon Press. pp. 21–36. ISBN 0-687-12181-7. "Despite the dominant usage of euangellismos in the New Testament, its derivative, evangelical, was not widely or controversially employed until the Reformation period. Then it came into prominence with Martin Luther precisely because he reasserted Paul's teaching on the euangellismos as the indispensable message of salvation. Its light, he argued, was hidden under a bushel of ecclesiastical authority, tradition, and liturgy. The essence of the saving message for Luther was justification by faith alone, the article by which not only the church stands or falls but each individual as well. Erasmus, Thomas More, and Johannes Eck denigrated those who accepted this view and referred to them as 'evangelicals.'"
9.Jump up ^ Marsden 1991, pp. 2.
10.Jump up ^ Bebbington 1993, pp. 1.
11.Jump up ^ Gove, Philip Babcock, ed. (1971). Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language. Springfield, MA: G & C Merriam. ISBN 978-0-87779-101-0. "evangelical [...] 5 [...] characterized by or reflecting a missionary, reforming, or redeeming impulse or purpose [...] <the rise and fall of evangelical fervor [sic] within the Socialist movement – Time Lit. Supp.>"
12.Jump up ^ Trueman 2011, pp. 14.
13.Jump up ^ Bebbington 1993, pp. 3.
14.Jump up ^ Bebbington 1993, pp. 5-8.
15.Jump up ^ Bebbington 1993, pp. 12-14.
16.Jump up ^ Bebbington 1993, pp. 15-16.
17.Jump up ^ Bebbington 1993, pp. 12.
18.Jump up ^ Mohler 2011, pp. 117.
19.^ Jump up to: a b c Dale M. Coulter, "The Two Wings of Evangelicalism", First Things (November 5, 2013). Accessed December 17, 2014.
20.Jump up ^ Stanley 2013, pp. 27-28.
21.Jump up ^ Bauder 2011, pp. 30-32.
22.Jump up ^ Marsden 1991, pp. 3-4.
23.^ Jump up to: a b Olson 2011, pp. 241-242.
24.Jump up ^ Reimer 2003, pp. 29.
25.Jump up ^ Mohler 2011, pp. 103-104.
26.Jump up ^ Stanley 2013, pp. 58.
27.Jump up ^ Marsden 1991, pp. 75.
28.Jump up ^ Roger E. Olson, "Postconservative Evangelicals Greet the Postmodern Age", The Christian Century (May 3, 1995), pp. 480-483. Accessed December 16, 2014.
29.Jump up ^ Randall 2005, p. 52.
30.Jump up ^ Tomlinson 2007, p. 28.
31.Jump up ^ Balmer 2002, pp. vii–viii.
32.Jump up ^ Noll 2004, pp. 50.
33.Jump up ^ Balmer 2002, pp. 542-543.
34.Jump up ^ Longfield 2013, pp. 7.
35.Jump up ^ Noll 2004, pp. 44, 112.
36.Jump up ^ Noll 2004, pp. 54-55.
37.Jump up ^ Noll 2004, pp. 46-47.
38.Jump up ^ Noll 2004, pp. 66-67.
39.Jump up ^ Noll 2004, pp. 76.
40.Jump up ^ Bebbington 1993, pp. 74.
41.Jump up ^ Bebbington 1993, pp. 42.
42.Jump up ^ Bebbington 1993, pp. 43.
43.Jump up ^ Noll 2004, pp. 76-78.
44.Jump up ^ Lovelace, Richard F (2007). The American Pietism of Cotton Mather: Origins of American Evangelicalism. Wipf & Stock.
45.Jump up ^ Noll 2004, pp. 77.
46.Jump up ^ Noll 2004, pp. 81–82.
47.Jump up ^ Noll 2004, pp. 79.
48.^ Jump up to: a b c Bebbington 1993, pp. 20.
49.Jump up ^ Noll 2004, pp. 79-80.
50.Jump up ^ Noll 2004, pp. 84.
51.Jump up ^ Noll 2004, pp. 85.
52.Jump up ^ Noll 2004, pp. 97.
53.Jump up ^ Shantz, Douglas H (2013). An Introduction to German Pietism: Protestant Renewal at the Dawn of Modern Europe. JHU. pp. 279–80.
54.Jump up ^ Noll 2004, pp. 87.
55.Jump up ^ Snead, Jennifer (2010), "Print, Predestination, and the Public Sphere: Transatlantic Evangelical Periodicals, 1740–1745", Early American Literature 45 (1): 93–118, doi:10.1353/eal.0.0092.
56.Jump up ^ Stout, Harold 'Harry' (1991), The Divine Dramatist: George Whitefield and the Rise of Modern Evangelicalism.
57.Jump up ^ Bebbington, David W (Jan 2002), "The Evangelical Revival in Britain in the Nineteenth Century", Kyrkohistorisk Arsskrift: 63–70.
58.Jump up ^ Bebbington, David W (2007), "The Evangelical Conscience", Welsh Journal of Religious History 2 (1): 27–44.
59.Jump up ^ Bebbington, David W (1996), "The Holiness Movements in British and Canadian Methodism in the Late Nineteenth Century", Proceedings of the Wesley Historical Society 50 (6): 203–28.
60.Jump up ^ Sweetnam, Mark S (2010), "Defining Dispensationalism: A Cultural Studies Perspective", Journal of Religious History 34 (2): 191–212, doi:10.1111/j.1467-9809.2010.00862.x.
61.Jump up ^ Bebbington, David W (2005), Dominance of Evangelicalism: The Age of Spurgeon and Moody
62.Jump up ^ Findlay, James F (1969), Dwight L. Moody: American Evangelist, 1837–1899.
63.Jump up ^ Hoffecker, W. Andrew (1981), Piety and the Princeton Theologians, Nutley: Presbyterian & Reformed, v.
64.Jump up ^ Henry, Carl FH (August 29, 2003) [1947], The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism (reprint ed.), Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, ISBN 0-8028-2661-X.
65.Jump up ^ Zoba, Wendy Murray, The Fundamentalist-Evangelical Split, Belief net, retrieved July 2005.
66.Jump up ^ Global Christianity: A Report on the Size and Distribution of the World's Christian Population (PDF), Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, December 19, 2011, p. 67.
67.^ Jump up to: a b Johnstone; Mandryk. "Operation World". Retrieved August 31, 2014.
68.Jump up ^ "WEA". World Evangelical Alliance. 2015. Archived from the original on 2015-03-15. Retrieved 2015-03-15.
69.Jump up ^ "Lausanne Movement". Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization. 2015. Archived from the original on 2015-03-15. Retrieved 2007-05-24.
70.Jump up ^ Milne, Bruce (2010). Know the Truth: A Handbook of Christian Belief. InterVarsity Press. p. 332. ISBN 0-83082-576-2. Retrieved August 31, 2014.
71.Jump up ^ Freston, Paul (2004), Evangelicals and Politics in Asia, Africa and Latin America, pp. 107–90.
72.Jump up ^ Ranger 2008.
73.Jump up ^ Ranger 2008, pp. 37–66.
74.Jump up ^ Ranger 2008, pp. 66–94.
75.Jump up ^ Pakendorf, Gunther (2011), "A Brief History of the Berlin Mission Society in South Africa", History Compass 9 (2): 106–18, doi:10.1111/j.1478-0542.2009.00624.x.
76.Jump up ^ van Dijk, Richard A (1992), "Young Puritan Preachers In Post-Independence Malawi", Africa (Edinburgh University Press) 62 (2): 159–81, doi:10.2307/1160453.
77.Jump up ^ Harries, Patrick (1988), "Christianity in Black and White: The Establishment of Protestant Churches in Southern Mozambique", Lusotopie: 317–33.
78.Jump up ^ Larsen, Timothy; Treier, Daniel J (12 April 2007). The Cambridge Companion to Evangelical Theology. Cambridge University Press. p. 261. ISBN 978-1-139-82750-8. Retrieved 14 July 2013.
79.Jump up ^ "U.S. Hispanics Are Becoming Less Catholic". Time. March 1, 2013. Retrieved 14 July 2013.
80.Jump up ^ "Religion in Latin America: Hola, Luther". The Economist. November 8, 2008. Retrieved 14 July 2013.
81.Jump up ^ Leonard, Émil-G (1963), O Protestantismo Brasileiro [Brazilian Protestantism] (in Portuguese), São Paulo: ASTE.
82.Jump up ^ Testa, Michael (1964), "The Apostle of Madeira.", Journal of Presbyterian History 42 (4): 244–71 |chapter= ignored (help).
83.Jump up ^ Latourette, Kenneth Scott (1943), A history of the expansion of Christianity, V: The great century in the Americas, Austral-Asia, and Africa: A.D. 1800 – A.D. 1914, pp. 120–3.
84.Jump up ^ Latourette, Kenneth Scott (1945), A history of the expansion of Christianity, VII: Advance through Storm: A.D. 1914 and after, with concluding generalizations, pp. 181–2.
85.Jump up ^ Braga, Erasmo; Trubb, Kenneth G (1932), The Republic of Brazil: A survey of the religious situation[unreliable source?]
86.Jump up ^ Burdick, John (2005), "Why is the Black Evangelical Movement Growing in Brazil?", Journal of Latin American Studies 37 (2): 311–32, doi:10.1017/s0022216x05009028.
87.Jump up ^ Chesnut, R. Andrew (1999), "The Salvation Army or the Army's Salvation?: Pentecostal Politics in Amazonian Brazil, 1962–1992", Luso-Brazilian Review 36 (2): 33–49.
88.Jump up ^ Birman, Patrícia; Leite, Márcia Pereira (2000), "Whatever Happened to What Used to Be the Largest Catholic Country in the World?" (JSTOR), Daedalus 129 (2): 271–90.
89.Jump up ^ Londono, Diana (Dec 5, 2012), "Evangelicals in Brazil", Hemispheric Affairs (Coha).
90.Jump up ^ Antunes, Anderson (Jan 17, 2013), "The Richest Pastors In Brazil", Forbes.
91.Jump up ^ Chesnut 1997, p. 104.
92.Jump up ^ Jacob, CR; Hees, DR; Waniez, P; Brustlein, V (2003), Atlas da Filiação Religiosa e Indicadores Sociais no Brasil [Brazilian Religious Affiliation & Social Indicators Atlas] (in Portuguese), São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro: PUC-Rio, Edições Loyola, ISBN 85-15-02719-4.
93.Jump up ^ Garrard-Burnett. Protestantism in Guatemala. pp. 138–61.
94.Jump up ^ Garrard-Burnett, Virginia (2011). Terror in the Land of the Holy Spirit: Guatemala under General Efrain Rios Montt 1982–1983. New York: Oxford University Press.
95.Jump up ^ Chesnut 1997, p. 145.
96.Jump up ^ Kane, Danielle; Park, Jung Mee (2009), "The Puzzle of Korean Christianity: Geopolitical Networks and Religious Conversion in Early Twentieth-Century East Asia", American Journal of Sociology 115 (2): 365–404, doi:10.1086/599246.
97.Jump up ^ Latourette, Kenneth Scott (1945), A history of the expansion of Christianity:, VII: Advance through Storm: A.D. 1914 and after, with concluding generalizations, pp. 401–7.
98.Jump up ^ Ryu, Dae Young (2008), "The Origin and Characteristics of Evangelical Protestantism in Korea at the Turn of the Twentieth Century", Church History 77 (2): 371–98, doi:10.1017/S0009640708000589.
99.Jump up ^ Sukman, Jang (2004), "Historical Currents and Characteristics of Korean Protestantism after Liberation", Korea Journal 44 (4): 133–56.[unreliable source?]
100.Jump up ^ Ferguson, Tessa (March 9, 2011). "Professor explains religion's popularity in South Korea". ASU News. Arizona State University: The State Press. Retrieved 2013-07-25.
101.Jump up ^ "Missions Incredible". Christianity Today. 2006-01-03. Retrieved 2013-07-25.
102.Jump up ^ "Born Again: Evangelicalism in Korea". Hawai’i: UH Press. 2013-06-14. Retrieved 2013-07-25.
103.Jump up ^ Churchgoing the UK published by Tearfund 2007
104.Jump up ^ Life in the Church published Evangelical Alliance 2013
105.Jump up ^ Does Money Matter? published by Evangelical Alliance 2012
106.Jump up ^ 21st Century Evangelicals published by Evangelical Alliance 2010
107.^ Jump up to: a b c Luo, Michael (2006-04-16). "Evangelicals Debate the Meaning of 'Evangelical'". The New York Times.
108.Jump up ^ Mead, Walter Russell (2006). "God's Country?". Foreign Affairs. Council on Foreign Relations. Retrieved 2008-03-27.
109.Jump up ^ Crouch, Andrew (November 2004), "The Emergent Mystique", Christianity Today.
110.Jump up ^ Cloud, DW (December 1, 2009), What is the Emerging Church, Way of Life.
111.Jump up ^ Balmer 2002, p. 232.
112.Jump up ^ Marsden 1991.
113.Jump up ^ Carpenter 1999.
114.Jump up ^ Carpenter, Joel A (1997), Revive Us Again: The Reawakening of American Fundamentalism, pp. 184–5.
115.Jump up ^ Miller-Davenport, Sarah (2013), "'Their blood shall not be shed in vain': American Evangelical Missionaries and the Search for God and Country in Post–World War II Asia", Journal of American History 99 (4): 1109–32, doi:10.1093/jahist/jas648.
116.Jump up ^ "Defining the Term in Contemporary Context", Defining Evangelicalism, Wheaton College: Institute for the Study of American Evangelicals.
117.Jump up ^ Green, John C. "The American Religious Landscape and Political Attitudes: A Baseline for 2004" (PDF) (survey). The Pew forum.
118.Jump up ^ Kosmin, Barry A.; Mayer, Egon; Keysar, Ariela (2001). "American Religious Identification Survey" (PDF). City University of New York; Graduate School and University Center. Retrieved 2007-04-04.
119.Jump up ^ Olson, David T (2008), The American Church in Crisis, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 240pp.
120.Jump up ^ "125 Surprising Facts", The American church (MS POWERPOINT) (presentation).
121.Jump up ^ "Lift every voice". The Economist. May 5, 2012.
122.Jump up ^ Clark, Norman H (1976), Deliver Us from Evil: An Interpretation of American Prohibition.
123.Jump up ^ "The Triumph of the Religious Right", The Economist November 11, 2004.
124.Jump up ^ Shields, Jon A (2009), The Democratic Virtues of the Christian Right, pp. 117, 121.
125.Jump up ^ Heineman, God is a Conservative, pp 71–2, 173
126.Jump up ^ Dudley, Jonathan (2011). Broken Words: The Abuse of Science and Faith in American Politics. Crown Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0-385-52526-8. Retrieved February 24, 2015..
127.Jump up ^ Heineman, Kenneth J. (1998). God is a Conservative: Religion, Politics and Morality in Contemporary America. pp. 44–123. ISBN 978-0-8147-3554-1.
128.Jump up ^ Dershowitz, Alan M (2007), Blasphemy: how the religious right is hijacking our Declaration of Independence, p. 121.
129.Jump up ^ Smith, Christian (2002). Christian America?: What Evangelicals Really Want. p. 207.[unreliable source?]
130.Jump up ^ Limbaugh, David (2003). Persecution: How Liberals are Waging War Against Christians. Regnery. ISBN 0-89526-111-1.[unreliable source?]
131.Jump up ^ See "Good People Go to Hell, Saved People Go to Heaven"
132.Jump up ^ Kirkpatrick, David D (October 28, 2007). "The Evangelical Crackup". The New York Times Magazine.
133.Jump up ^ "Edge Boss - contribution=Focus fam action" (PDF). Akamai. Retrieved 2010-08-02.[dead link]
134.Jump up ^ Vu, Michelle A (July 29, 2008). "Rick Warren: Pastors Shouldn't Endorse Politicians". Christian post. Retrieved October 25, 2011.
Bibliography[edit]
Balmer, Randall Herbert (2002), Encyclopedia of Evangelicalism, Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, ISBN 978-0-664-22409-7, retrieved October 25, 2011.
Bauder, Kevin (2011), "Fundamentalism", in Naselli, Andrew; Hansen, Collin, Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, ISBN 978-0-310-55581-0
Bebbington, David W (1993), Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s, London: Routledge
Chesnut, R. Andrew (1997), Born Again in Brazil: The Pentecostal Boom and the Pathogens of Poverty, Rutgers University Press.
Longfield, Bradley J. (2013), Presbyterians and American Culture: A History, Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster Johh Knox Press
Marsden, George M (1991), Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism, Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, ISBN 0-8028-0539-6
Mohler, Albert (2011), "Confessional Evangelicalism", in Naselli, Andrew; Hansen, Collin, Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, ISBN 978-0-310-55581-0
Noll, Mark A. (2004), The Rise of Evangelicalism: The Age of Edwards, Whitefield and the Wesleys, Inter-Varsity, ISBN 1-84474-001-3
Olson, Roger (2011), "Postconservative Evangelicalism", in Naselli, Andrew; Hansen, Collin, Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, ISBN 978-0-310-55581-0
Randall, Kelvin (2005), Evangelicals etcetera: conflict and conviction in the Church of England
Ranger, Terence O, ed. (2008), Evangelical Christianity and Democracy in Africa, Oxford University Press.
Reimer, Sam (2003). Evangelicals and the Continental Divide: The Conservative Protestant Subculture in Canada and the United States. McGill-Queen's Press.
Stanley, Brian (2013). The Global Diffusion of Evangelicalism: The Age of Billy Graham and John Stott. IVP Academic. ISBN 978-0-8308-2585-1.
Tomlinson, Dave (2007). The Post-Evangelical. ISBN 0-310-25385-3.
Trueman, Carl (2011), The Real Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, Moody Publishers
Further reading[edit]
Balmer, Randall Herbert (2004), Encyclopedia of Evangelicalism (EXCERPT AND TEXT SEARCH) (2nd ed.); online.
——— (2010), The Making of Evangelicalism: From Revivalism to Politics and Beyond, ISBN 978-1-60258-243-9.
——— (2000), Blessed Assurance: A History of Evangelicalism in America
Bastian, Jean-Pierre (1994), Le Protestantisme en Amérique latine: une approche sio-historique [Protestantism in Latin America: a sio‐historical approach], Histoire et société (in French) (27), Genève: Labor et Fides, ISBN 2-8309-0684-5; alternative ISBN on back cover, 2-8309-0687-X; 324 pp.
Beale, David O (1986), In Pursuit of Purity: American Fundamentalism Since 1850, Greenville, SC: Bob Jones University: Unusual, ISBN 0-89084-350-3.
Bebbington, D. W. (1989), Evangelicals in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s, London: Unwin.
Carpenter, Joel A. (1980), "Fundamentalist Institutions and the Rise of Evangelical Protestantism, 1929–1942", Church History 49: 62–75, doi:10.2307/3164640.
——— (1999), Revive Us Again: The Reawakening of American Fundamentalism, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-512907-5.
Chapman, Mark B., "American Evangelical Attitudes Toward Catholicism: Post-World War II to Vatican II," U.S. Catholic Historian, 33#1 (Winter 2015), 25-54.
Freston, Paul (2004), Evangelicals and Politics in Asia, Africa and Latin America, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-60429-X.
Hindmarsh, Bruce (2005), The Evangelical Conversion Narrative: Spiritual Autobiography in Early Modern England, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kidd, Thomas S (2007), The Great Awakening: The Roots of Evangelical Christianity in Colonial America, Yale University Press.
Knox, Ronald (1950), Enthusiasm: a Chapter in the History of Religion, with Special Reference to the XVII and XVIII Centuries, Oxford, Eng: Oxford University Press, pp. viii, 622 pp.
Marsden, George M (1991), Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism (excerpt and text search).
——— (1987), Reforming Fundamentalism: Fuller Seminary and the New Evangelicalism, Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans.
Noll, Mark A (1992), A History of Christianity in the United States and Canada, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, pp. 311–89, ISBN 0-8028-0651-1.
Noll, Mark A; Bebbington, David W; Rawlyk, George A, eds. (1994), Evangelicalism: Comparative Studies of Popular Protestantism in North America, the British Isles and Beyond, 1700–1990.
Pierard, Richard V. (1979), "The Quest For the Historical Evangelicalism: A Bibliographical Excursus", Fides et Historia 11 (2): 60–72.
Price, Robert M. (1986), "Neo-Evangelicals and Scripture: A Forgotten Period of Ferment", Christian Scholars Review 15 (4): 315–30.
Rawlyk, George A; Noll, Mark A, eds. (1993), Amazing Grace: Evangelicalism in Australia, Britain, Canada, and the United States.
Schafer, Axel R (2011), Countercultural Conservatives: American Evangelicalism From the Postwar Revival to the New Christian Right, U. of Wisconsin Press, 225 pp; covers evangelical politics from the 1940s to the 1990s that examines how a diverse, politically pluralistic movement became, largely, the Christian Right.
Smith, Timothy L (1957), Revivalism and Social Reform: American Protestantism on the Eve of the Civil War.
Stackhouse, John G (1993), Canadian Evangelicalism in the Twentieth Century
Sutton, Matthew Avery. American Apocalypse: A history of modern evangelicalism (2014)
Utzinger, J. Michael (2006), Yet Saints Their Watch Are Keeping: Fundamentalists, Modernists, and the Development of Evangelical Ecclesiology, 1887–1937, Macon: Mercer University Press, ISBN 0-86554-902-8.
Ward, WR (2006), Early Evangelicalism: A Global Intellectual History (Amazon excerpt and text search), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wigger, John H; Hatch, Nathan O, eds. (2001), Methodism and the Shaping of American Culture (AMAZON EXCERPT AND TEXT SEARCH) (essays by scholars).
Wright, Bradley (March 21, 2013), "Black, White & Gray", The Economist, Evangelical Christianity in America (Patheos) |chapter= ignored (help).
Missions[edit]
Anderson, Gerald H, ed. (1998), Biographical dictionary of Christian missions, Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
Bainbridge, William F (1882), Around the World Tour of Christian Missions: A Universal Survey (AMAZON FULL TEXT ONLINE), 583 pp.
Barrett, David, ed. (1982), World Christian Encyclopedia, Oxford University Press.
Brown, Candy Gunther, ed. (2011), Global Pentecostal and Charismatic Healing (essays by scholars on different countries), Oxford UP, 400 pp.
Etherington, Norman, ed. (2008), Missions and Empire, Oxford History of the British Empire Companion.
Gailey, Charles R; Culbertson, Howard (2007), Discovering Missions, Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press.
Glover, Robert H; Kane, J Herbert (1960), The Progress of World-Wide Missions, Harper & Row.
Hutchison, William R (1987), Errand to the World: American Protestant Thought and Foreign Missions.
Jenkins, Philip (2011), The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity (AMAZON EXCERPT AND TEXT SEARCH) (3rd ed.), Oxford UP.
Kane, J. Herbert (1982), A Concise History of the Christian World Mission, Baker.
Koschorke, Klaus (2007), A History of Christianity in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, 1450–1990: A Documentary Sourcebook (GOOGLE BOOKS), et al., Wm. B. Eerdmans Amazon excerpts, text search and table of contents.
Latourette, Kenneth Scott, A History of the Expansion of Christianity, (1938–45) (detailed scholarly history), 7 volumes.
Moreau, A. Scott (2000), Evangelical Dictionary of World Missions, et al, Baker.
Neill, Stephen (1986), A History of Christian Missions, Penguin.
Newcomb, Harvey (1860), A Cyclopedia of Missions: Containing a Comprehensive View of Missionary Operations Throughout the World with Geographical Descriptions, and Accounts of the Social, Moral, and Religious Condition of the People (GOOGLE BOOKS), 792 pp.
Pocock, Michael; van Rheenen, Gailyn; McConnell, Douglas (2005), The Changing Face of World Missions: Engaging Contemporary Issues and Trends; 391 pp.
Shenk, Wilbert R, ed. (2004), North American Foreign Missions, 1810–1914: Theology, Theory, and Policy (AMAZON EXCERPTS AND TEXT SEARCH). 349 pp; important essays by scholars.
Tejirian, Eleanor H; Simon, Reeva Spector, eds. (2012), Conflict, Conquest, and Conversion: Two Thousand Years of Christian Missions in the Middle East, Columbia University Press, 280 pp; focus on the 19th and 20th centuries.
Tucker, Ruth (2004), From Jerusalem to Irian Jaya.
——— (1988), Guardians of the Great Commission.
External links[edit]
 Look up evangelist, evangelical, or evangelicalism in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Institute for the Study of American Evangelicalism, Wheaton College.
Spencer, Michael (March 10, 2009), "The Coming Evangelical Collapse", The Christian Science Monitor.
Modern Evangelical African Theologians: A Primer, Need not fret.
American Evangelicalism and Islam: From the Antichrist to the Mahdi, DE: Qantara.
Operation World – Statistics from around the world including numbers of Evangelicals by country.
World Evangelical Alliance (WEA)



[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
History of Christianity





































The Nicene Creed at the First Council of Nicaea



















































































































































































































































































































[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Christianity















Stained glass at St John's Ashfield, illustrating Jesus' description of himself, "I am the Good Shepherd", from the Gospel of John, chapter 10, verse 11.















































































































































Category
Portal icon
WikiProject





Authority control
NDL: 00616777
 

  



Categories: Evangelicalism
Christian missions
Christian terminology
Christian theological movements











































Navigation menu




Create account
Log in




Article

Talk












Read

Edit

View history

























Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
العربية
Arpetan
Asturianu
Беларуская
Български
Català
Cebuano
Čeština
Dansk
Deutsch
Ελληνικά
Español
Esperanto
Euskara
فارسی
Français
한국어
Bahasa Indonesia
Interlingua
Italiano
עברית
Ladino
Latina
Lietuvių
Lumbaart
Македонски
Nederlands
日本語
Norsk bokmål
Polski
Português
Русский
Simple English
Slovenčina
Slovenščina
Српски / srpski
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Suomi
Svenska
Українська
Tiếng Việt
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 19 June 2015, at 09:53.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
    
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicalism#Conservative_Evangelicalism















Evangelicalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Conservative evangelicalism)
Jump to: navigation, search

Not to be confused with evangelism.
"Evangelical" redirects here. For other uses, see Evangelical (disambiguation).
Part of a series on
Christianity
Jesus depicted as the Good Shepherd



Jesus ·
 Christ
 [show]











Bible ·
 Foundations
 [show]














Theology[show]

























History ·
 Tradition
 [show]























Related topics[show]




















Denominations ·
 Groups
 [show]









































Christian cross Christianity portal
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Evangelicalism, Evangelical Christianity, or Evangelical Protestantism[a] is a worldwide, transdenominational movement within Protestant Christianity, maintaining that the essence of the gospel consists in the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ's atonement.[1][2]
Evangelicals are Christians who believe in the centrality of the conversion or "born again" experience in receiving salvation, believe in the authority of the Bible as God's revelation to humanity and have a strong commitment to evangelism or sharing the Christian message.
It gained great momentum in the 18th and 19th centuries with the emergence of Methodism and the Great Awakenings in Britain and North America. The origins of Evangelicalism are usually traced back to the English Methodist movement, Nicolaus Zinzendorf, the Moravian Church, Lutheran pietism, Presbyterianism and Puritanism.[3] Among leaders and major figures of the Evangelical Protestant movement were John Wesley, George Whitefield, Jonathan Edwards, Billy Graham, Harold John Ockenga, John Stott and Martyn Lloyd-Jones.
There are an estimated 285,480,000 Evangelicals, corresponding to 13.1% of the Christian population and 4.1% of the total world population. The Americas, Africa and Asia are home to the majority of Evangelicals. The United States has the largest concentration of Evangelicals.[4] Evangelicalism is gaining popularity both in and outside the English-speaking world, especially in Latin America and the developing world.



Contents  [hide]
1 Usage
2 Characteristics
3 Diversity 3.1 Fundamentalism
3.2 Mainstream varieties
3.3 Non-conservative varieties
4 History 4.1 Background
4.2 18th century
4.3 19th century
4.4 20th century
5 Global statistics
6 Africa
7 Latin America 7.1 Brazil
7.2 Guatemala
8 Asia 8.1 Korea
9 United Kingdom
10 United States 10.1 20th century
10.2 Meaning of Evangelicalism in the US
10.3 Demographics
10.4 Types of Evangelical
10.5 Politics 10.5.1 Christian right
10.5.2 Christian left
10.6 Recurrent themes 10.6.1 Abortion
10.6.2 Secularism
10.6.3 Christian nation
10.6.4 Media references
10.6.5 Other issues

11 See also
12 Footnotes
13 Notes
14 Bibliography
15 Further reading 15.1 Missions
16 External links

Usage[edit]
The word evangelical has its etymological roots in the Greek word for "gospel" or "good news": ε’υαγγέλιον (evangelion), from eu- "good" and angelion "message". By the English Middle Ages the term had expanded semantically to include not only the message, but also the New Testament which contained the message, as well as more specifically the Gospels which portray the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.[5] The first published use of evangelical in English came in 1531 when William Tyndale wrote "He exhorteth them to proceed constantly in the evangelical truth." One year later Sir Thomas More produced the earliest recorded use in reference to a theological distinction when he spoke of "Tyndale [and] his evangelical brother Barns".[6]
During the Reformation, Protestant theologians embraced the label as referring to "gospel truth". Martin Luther referred to the evangelische Kirche ("evangelical church) to distinguish Protestants from Catholics in the Roman Catholic Church.[7][8] Into the 21st century, evangelical has continued in used as a synonym for (mainline) Protestant in continental Europe. This usage is reflected in the names of Protestant denominations such as the Evangelical Church in Germany (a union of Lutheran and Reformed churches) and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.[5]
In the English-speaking world, evangelical became a common label used to describe the series of revival movements that occurred in Britain and North America during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.[9] Christian historian David Bebbington writes that, "Although 'evangelical', with a lower-case initial, is occasionally used to mean 'of the gospel', the term 'Evangelical', with a capital letter, is applied to any aspect of the movement beginning in the 1730s."[10] The term may also occur outside any religious context to characterize a generic missionary, reforming, or redeeming impulse or purpose. For example, the Times Literary Supplement refers to "the rise and fall of evangelical fervor within the Socialist movement".[11]
Characteristics[edit]
One influential definition of Evangelicalism has been proposed by historian David Bebbington.[12] Bebbington notes four distinctive aspects of Evangelical faith: conversionism, biblicism, crucicentrism, and activism, noting, "Together they form a quadrilateral of priorities that is the basis of Evangelicalism."[13]
Conversionism, or belief in the necessity of being "born again", has been a constant theme of Evangelicalism since its beginnings. To Evangelicals, the central message of the gospel is justification by faith in Christ and repentance, or turning away, from sin. Conversion differentiates the Christian from the non-Christian, and the change in life it leads to is marked by both a rejection of sin and a corresponding personal holiness of life. A conversion experience can be emotional, including grief and sorrow for sin followed by great relief at receiving forgiveness. The stress on conversion is further differentiated from other forms of Protestantism by the belief that an assurance of salvation will accompany conversion. Among Evangelicals, individuals have testified to both sudden and gradual conversions.[14]
Biblicism is defined as having a reverence for the Bible and a high regard for biblical authority. All Evangelicals believe in biblical inspiration, though they disagree over how this inspiration should be defined. Many Evangelicals believe in biblical inerrancy, while other Evangelicals believe in biblical infallibility.[15]
Crucicentrism refers to the attention that Evangelicals give to the Atonement, the saving death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, that offers forgiveness of sins and new life. This is understood most commonly in terms of a substitutionary atonement, in which Christ died as a substitute for sinful humanity by taking on himself the guilt and punishment for sin.[16]
Activism describes the tendency towards active expression and sharing of the gospel in diverse ways that include preaching and social action. This aspect of Evangelicalism continues to be seen today in the proliferation of Evangelical voluntary religious groups and parachurch organizations.[17]
Diversity[edit]

Protestantism



95Thesen.jpg
(The Ninety-Five Theses)

The Reformation

History

Culture

Major branches
Adventism
Anabaptism
Anglicanism
Baptist churches
Calvinism (Reformed tradition)
Lutheranism
Methodism
Pentecostalism
Other Protestant branches

Transdenominational movements
Evangelicalism
Charismatic Movement
Neo-charismatic churches

v ·
 t ·
 e
   
As a trans-denominational movement, Evangelicalism occurs in nearly every Protestant denomination and tradition. The Reformed, Baptist, Wesleyan, and Pentecostal traditions have all had strong influence within modern Evangelicalism.[18] Evangelicals are also represented within the Anabaptist, Anglican and Lutheran traditions.[19]
The early 20th century saw the decline of Evangelical influence within mainline Protestantism and the development of Christian fundamentalism as a distinct religious movement. The second half of the century witnessed the development of a new mainstream Evangelical consensus that sought to be more inclusive and more culturally relevant than fundamentalism, while maintaining conservative Protestant teaching. According to professor of world Christianity Brian Stanley, this new postwar consensus is termed "Neo-Evangelicalism", the "New Evangelicalism", or simply "Evangelicalism" in the United States, while in the United Kingdom and in other English-speaking countries it is commonly termed conservative Evangelicalism. Over the years, less conservative Evangelicals have challenged this mainstream consensus to varying degrees, and such movements have been described by a variety of labels, such as progressive, open, post-conservative, and post-evangelical.[20]
Fundamentalism[edit]
Fundamentalism regards biblical inerrancy, the virgin birth of Jesus, penal substitutionary atonement, the literal resurrection of Christ and the Second Coming of Christ as fundamental Christian doctrines.[21] Fundamentalism arose among Evangelicals in the 1920s to combat modernist or liberal theology in Mainline Protestant churches. Failing to reform the Mainline churches, fundamentalists separated from them and established their own churches, refusing to participate in ecumenical organizations such as the National Council of Churches. They also made separatism (rigid separation from non-fundamentalist churches and culture) a true test of faith. According to historian George Marsden, most fundamentalists are Baptists and dispensationalist.[22]
Mainstream varieties[edit]
Mainstream Evangelicalism is historically divided between two main orientations: confessionalism and revivalism. These two streams have been critical of each other. Confessional Evangelicals have been suspicious of unguarded religious experience, while revivalist Evangelicals have been critical of overly intellectual teaching that (they suspect) stifles vibrant spirituality.[23] In an effort to broaden their appeal, many contemporary Evangelical congregations intentionally avoid identifying with any single form of Evangelicalism. These "generic Evangelicals" are usually theologically and socially conservative, but their churches often present themselves as nondenominational within the broader Evangelical movement.[24]
In the words of Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, confessional Evangelicalism refers to "that movement of Christian believers who seek a constant convictional continuity with the theological formulas of the Protestant Reformation". While approving of the Evangelical distinctives proposed by Bebbington, confessional Evangelicals believe that authentic Evangelicalism requires more concrete definition in order to protect the movement from theological liberalism and from heresy. This protection, according to confessional Evangelicals, is found in subscription to the ecumenical creeds and to the Reformation-era confessions of faith (such as the confessions of the Reformed churches).[25] Confessional Evangelicals are represented by conservative Presbyterian churches, certain Baptist churches that emphasize historic Baptist confessions like the Second London Confession, Anglicans who emphasize the Thirty-Nine Articles (such as in the Anglican Diocese of Sydney, Australia[26]), and confessional Lutherans who identify with the Evangelical movement.[19]
The emphasis on historic Protestant orthodoxy among confessional Evangelicals stands in direct contrast to an anti-creedal outlook that has exerted its own influence on Evangelicalism, particularly among churches heavily influenced by revivalism and by pietism. Revivalist Evangelicals are represented by some quarters of Methodism, the Wesleyan Holiness churches, the Pentecostal/charismatic churches, some Anabaptist churches, and some Baptists and Presbyterians.[19] Revivalist Evangelicals tend to place greater emphasis on religious experience than their confessional counterparts.[23]
Non-conservative varieties[edit]
Evangelicals dissatisfied with the movement's conservative mainstream have been variously described as progressive Evangelicals, post-conservative Evangelicals, Open Evangelicals and Post-evangelicals. Progressive Evangelicals, also known as the Evangelical left, share theological or social views with other progressive Christians, while also identifying with Evangelicalism. Progressive Evangelicals commonly advocate for women's equality, pacifism and social justice.[27]
As described by Baptist theologian Roger E. Olson, post-conservative Evangelicalism is a theological school of thought that adheres to the four marks of Evangelicalism, while being less rigid and more inclusive of other Christians. According to Olson, post-conservatives believe that doctrine and propositional truth is secondary to spiritual experience shaped by Scripture. Post-conservative Evangelicals seek greater dialogue with other Christian traditions and support the development of a multicultural Evangelical theology that incorporates the voices of women, racial minorities, and Christians in the developing world. Some post-conservative Evangelicals also support Open Theism and the possibility of near universal salvation.[28]
The term "Open Evangelical" refers to a particular Christian school of thought or churchmanship, primarily in the United Kingdom (especially in the Church of England). Open Evangelicals describe their position as combining a traditional Evangelical emphasis on the nature of scriptural authority, the teaching of the ecumenical creeds and other traditional doctrinal teachings, with an approach towards culture and other theological points-of-view which tends to be more inclusive than that taken by other Evangelicals. Some Open Evangelicals aim to take a middle position between conservative and charismatic Evangelicals, while others would combine conservative theological emphases with more liberal social positions.[29]
British author Dave Tomlinson coined the phrase "post-evangelical" to describe a movement comprising various trends of dissatisfaction among Evangelicals. Others use the term with comparable intent, often to distinguish Evangelicals in the so-called emerging church movement from post-evangelicals and anti-Evangelicals. Tomlinson argues that "linguistically, the distinction [between evangelical and post-evangelical] resembles the one that sociologists make between the modern and postmodern eras".[30]
History[edit]
Background[edit]
Evangelicalism did not take recognizable form until the 18th century, first in Britain and its North American colonies. Nevertheless, there were earlier developments within the larger Protestant world that preceded and influenced the later evangelical revivals. According to religion scholar, social activist, and politician Randall Balmer, Evangelicalism resulted "from the confluence of Pietism, Presbyterianism, and the vestiges of Puritanism. Evangelicalism picked up the peculiar characteristics from each strain – warmhearted spirituality from the Pietists (for instance), doctrinal precisionism from the Presbyterians, and individualistic introspection from the Puritans".[31] Historian Mark Noll adds to this list High Church Anglicanism, which contributed to Evangelicalism a legacy of "rigorous spirituality and innovative organization".[32]
During the 17th century, Pietism emerged in Europe as a movement for the revival of piety and devotion within the Lutheran church. As a protest against "cold orthodoxy" or an overly formal and rational Christianity, Pietists advocated for an experiential religion that stressed high moral standards for both clergy and lay people. The movement included both Christians who remained in the liturgical, state churches as well as separatist groups who rejected the use of baptismal fonts, altars, pulpits, and confessionals. As Pietism spread, the movement's ideals and aspirations influenced and were absorbed into early Evangelicalism.[33]
The Presbyterian heritage not only gave Evangelicalism a commitment to Protestant orthodoxy but also contributed a revival tradition that stretched back to the 1620s in Scotland and Northern Ireland.[34] Central to this tradition was the communion season, which normally occurred in the summer months. For Presbyterians, celebrations of Holy Communion were infrequent but popular events preceded by several Sundays of preparatory preaching and accompanied with preaching, singing, and prayers.[35]
Puritanism combined Calvinism with teaching that conversion was a prerequisite for church membership and a stress on the study of Scripture by lay people. It took root in New England, where the Congregational church was an established religion. The Half-Way Covenant of 1662 allowed parents who had not testified to a conversion experience to have their children baptized, while reserving Holy Communion for converted church members alone.[36] By the 18th century, Puritanism was in decline and many ministers were alarmed at the loss of religious piety. This concern over declining religious commitment led many people to support evangelical revival.[37]
High Church Anglicanism also exerted influence on early Evangelicalism. High Churchmen were distinguished by their desire to adhere to primitive Christianity. This desire included imitating the faith and ascetic practices of early Christians as well as regularly partaking of Holy Communion. High Churchmen were also enthusiastic organizers of voluntary religious societies. Two of the most prominent were the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, which distributed Bibles and other literature and built schools, and the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts, which was created to facilitate missionary work in British colonies. Samuel and Susanna Wesley, the parents of John and Charles Wesley, were both devoted advocates of High Churchmanship.[38]
18th century[edit]



 Jonathan Edwards' account of the revival in Northampton was published in 1737 as A Faithful Narrative of the Surprising Work of God in the Conversion of Many Hundred Souls in Northampton.
In the 1730s, Evangelicalism emerged as a distinct phenomenon out of religious revivals that began in Britain and New England. While religious revivals had occurred within Protestant churches in the past, the evangelical revivals that marked the 18th century were more intense and radical.[39] Evangelical revivalism imbued ordinary men and women with a confidence and enthusiasm for sharing the gospel and converting others outside of the control of established churches, a key discontinuity with the Protestantism of the previous era.[40]
It was developments in the doctrine of assurance that differentiated Evangelicalism from what went before. Bebbington says, "The dynamism of the Evangelical movement was possible only because its adherents were assured in their faith."[41] He goes on:

Whereas the Puritans had held that assurance is rare, late and the fruit of struggle in the experience of believers, the Evangelicals believed it to be general, normally given at conversion and the result of simple acceptance of the gift of God. The consequence of the altered form of the doctrine was a metamorphosis in the nature of popular Protestantism. There was a change in patterns of piety, affecting devotional and practical life in all its departments. The shift, in fact, was responsible for creating in Evangelicalism a new movement and not merely a variation on themes heard since the Reformation."[42]
The first local revival occurred in Northampton, Massachusetts, under the leadership of Congregationalist minister Jonathan Edwards. In the fall of 1734, Edwards preached a sermon series on "Justification By Faith Alone", and the community's response was extraordinary. Signs of religious commitment among the laity increased, especially among the town's young people. The revival ultimately spread to 25 communities in western Massachusetts and central Connecticut until it began to wane by the spring of 1735.[43] Edwards was heavily influenced by Pietism, so much so that one historian has stressed his "American Pietism." [44] One practice clearly copied from European Pietists was the use of small groups divided by age and gender, which met in private homes to conserve and promote the fruits of revival.[45]
At the same time, students at Yale University (at that time Yale College) in New Haven, Connecticut, were also experiencing revival. Among them was Aaron Burr, who would become a prominent Presbyterian minister and future president of Princeton University. In New Jersey, Gilbert Tennent, another Presbyterian minister, was preaching the evangelical message and urging the Presbyterian Church to stress the necessity of converted ministers.[46]
The spring of 1735 also marked important events in England and Wales. Howell Harris, a Welsh schoolteacher, had a conversion experience on May 25 during a communion service. He described receiving assurance of God's grace after a period of fasting, self-examination, and despair over his sins.[47] Sometime later, Daniel Rowland, the Anglican curate of Llangeitho, Wales, experienced conversion as well. Both men began preaching the evangelical message to large audiences, becoming leaders of the Welsh Methodist revival.[48] At about the same time that Harris experienced conversion in Wales, George Whitefield was converted at Oxford University after his own prolonged spiritual crisis. Whitefield later remarked, "About this time God was pleased to enlighten my soul, and bring me into the knowledge of His free grace, and the necessity of being justified in His sight by faith only".[49]



John Wesley preaching
Whitefield's fellow Holy Club member and spiritual mentor, Charles Wesley, reported an evangelical conversion in 1738.[48] In the same week, Charles' brother and future founder of Methodism, John Wesley was also converted after a long period of inward struggle. During this spiritual crisis, John Wesley was directly influenced by Pietism. Two years before his conversion, Wesley had traveled to the newly established colony of Georgia as a missionary for the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. He shared his voyage with a group of Moravian Brethren led by August Gottlieb Spangenberg. The Moravians' faith and piety deeply impressed Wesley, especially their belief that it was a normal part of Christian life to have an assurance of one's salvation.[50] Wesley recounted the following exchange with Spangenberg on February 7, 1736:

[Spangenberg] said, "My brother, I must first ask you one or two questions. Have you the witness within yourself? Does the Spirit of God bear witness with your spirit that you are a child of God?" I was surprised, and knew not what to answer. He observed it, and asked, "Do you know Jesus Christ?" I paused, and said, "I know he is the Savior of the world." "True," he replied, "but do you know he has saved you?" I answered, "I hope he has died to save me." He only added, "Do you know yourself?" I said, "I do." But I fear they were vain words.[51]
Wesley finally received the assurance he had been searching for at a meeting of a religious society in London. While listening to a reading from Martin Luther's preface to the Epistle to the Romans, Wesley felt spiritually transformed:

About a quarter before nine, while [the speaker] was describing the change which God works in the heart through faith in Christ, I felt my heart strangely warmed. I felt I did trust in Christ, Christ alone for salvation, and an assurance was given me that he had taken away my sins, even mine, and saved me from the law of sin and death.[52]
Pietism continued to influence Wesley, who had translated 33 Pietist hymns from German to English. Numerous German Pietist hymns became part of the English Evangelical repertoire.[53]
By 1737, Whitefield had become a national celebrity in England where his preaching drew large crowds, especially in London.[54] Whitfield joined forces with Edwards to "fan the flame of revival" in the Thirteen Colonies in 1739–40. Soon the First Great Awakening stirred Protestants up and down the Thirteen Colonies.[48]
Evangelical preachers emphasized personal salvation and piety more than ritual and tradition. Pamphlets and printed sermons crisscrossed the Atlantic, encouraging the revivalists.[55] The Awakening resulted from powerful preaching that gave listeners a sense of deep personal revelation of their need of salvation by Jesus Christ. Pulling away from ritual and ceremony, the Great Awakening made Christianity intensely personal to the average person by fostering a deep sense of spiritual conviction and redemption, and by encouraging introspection and a commitment to a new standard of personal morality. It reached people who were already church members. It changed their rituals, their piety and their self-awareness. To the evangelical imperatives of Reformation Protestantism, 18th century American Christians added emphases on divine outpourings of the Holy Spirit and conversions that implanted within new believers an intense love for God. Revivals encapsulated those hallmarks and forwarded the newly created Evangelicalism into the early republic.[56]
19th century[edit]
The start of the 19th century saw an increase in missionary work and many of the major missionary societies were founded around this time (see Timeline of Christian missions). Both the Evangelical and high church movements sponsored missionaries.
The Second Great Awakening (which actually began in 1790) was primarily an American revivalist movement and resulted in substantial growth of the Methodist and Baptist churches. Charles Grandison Finney was an important preacher of this period.



William Wilberforce, British evangelical abolitionist
In Britain in addition to stressing the traditional Wesleyan combination of "Bible, cross, conversion, and activism," the revivalist movement sought a universal appeal, hoping to include rich and poor, urban and rural, and men and women. Special efforts were made to attract children and to generate literature to spread the revivalist message.[57]
"Christian conscience" was used by the British Evangelical movement to promote social activism. Evangelicals believed activism in government and the social sphere was an essential method in reaching the goal of eliminating sin in a world drenched in wickedness.[58] The Evangelicals in the Clapham Sect included figures such as William Wilberforce who successfully campaigned for the abolition of slavery.
In the late 19th century, the revivalist Holiness movement, based on the doctrine of "entire sanctification," took a more extreme form in rural America and Canada, where it ultimately broke away from institutional Methodism. In urban Britain the Holiness message was less exclusive and censorious.[59]
John Nelson Darby was a 19th-century Irish Anglican minister who devised modern dispensationalism, an innovative Protestant theological interpretation of the Bible that was incorporated in the development of modern Evangelicalism. Cyrus Scofield further promoted the influence of dispensationalism through the explanatory notes to his Scofield Reference Bible. According to scholar Mark S. Sweetnam, who takes a cultural studies perspective, dispensationalism can be defined in terms of its Evangelicalism, its insistence on the literal interpretation of Scripture, its recognition of stages in God's dealings with humanity, its expectation of the imminent return of Christ to rapture His saints, and its focus on both apocalypticism and premillennialism.[60]
Notable figures of the latter half of the 19th century include Charles Spurgeon in London and Dwight L. Moody in Chicago. Their powerful preaching reached very large audiences.[61][62]
An advanced theological perspective came from the Princeton theologians from the 1850s to the 1920s, such as Charles Hodge, Archibald Alexander and B.B. Warfield.[63]
20th century[edit]



 Services at the Pentecostal Church of God in Lejunior, Kentucky, 1946
Evangelicalism in the early part of the 20th century was dominated by the Fundamentalist movement after 1910; it rejected liberal theology and emphasized the inerrancy of the Scriptures.
Following the Welsh Revival, the Azusa Street Revival in 1906 began the spread of Pentecostalism in North America.
In the post–World War II period, a split developed between Evangelicals, as they disagreed among themselves about how a Christian ought to respond to an unbelieving world. Many Evangelicals urged that Christians must engage the culture directly and constructively,[64][page needed] and they began to express reservations about being known to the world as fundamentalists. As Kenneth Kantzer put it at the time, the name fundamentalist had become "an embarrassment instead of a badge of honor".[65]
The term neo-evangelicalism was coined by Harold Ockenga in 1947 to identify a distinct movement within self-identified fundamentalist Christianity at the time, especially in the English-speaking world. It described the mood of positivism and non-militancy that characterized that generation. The new generation of Evangelicals set as their goal to abandon a militant Bible stance. Instead, they would pursue dialogue, intellectualism, non-judgmentalism, and appeasement. They further called for an increased application of the gospel to the sociological, political, and economic areas.
The self-identified fundamentalists also cooperated in separating their "neo-Evangelical" opponents from the fundamentalist name, by increasingly seeking to distinguish themselves from the more open group, whom they often characterized derogatorily by Ockenga's term, "neo-Evangelical" or just Evangelical.



 The evangelical revivalist Billy Graham in Duisburg, Germany, 1954
The fundamentalists saw the Evangelicals as often being too concerned about social acceptance and intellectual respectability, and being too accommodating to a perverse generation that needed correction. In addition, they saw the efforts of evangelist Billy Graham, who worked with non-Evangelical denominations, such as the Roman Catholics (which they claimed to be heretical), as a mistake.[citation needed]
The post-war period also saw growth of the ecumenical movement and the founding of the World Council of Churches, which was generally regarded with suspicion by the Evangelical community.[citation needed]
In the United Kingdom, John Stott and Martyn Lloyd-Jones emerged as key leaders in Evangelical Christianity.
The charismatic movement began in the 1960s and resulted in Pentecostal theology and practice being introduced into many mainline denominations. New charismatic groups such as the Association of Vineyard Churches and Newfrontiers trace their roots to this period (see also British New Church Movement).
The closing years of the 20th century saw controversial postmodern influences entering some parts of Evangelicalism, particularly with the emerging church movement.[clarification needed]
Global statistics[edit]



 Chinese evangelical church in Madrid, Spain
According to a 2011 Pew Forum study on global Christianity, 285,480,000 or 13.1 percent of all Christians are Evangelicals.[66] The largest concentration of Evangelicals can be found in the United States, with 26.8% of the U.S. population or 94.38 million,[67] the latter being roughly one third of the world's Evangelicals.[4] The next most populous is Brazil, with 26.3% or 51.33 million.[67]
The World Evangelical Alliance is "a network of churches in 129 nations that have each formed an evangelical alliance and over 100 international organizations joining together to give a world-wide identity, voice, and platform to more than 600 million evangelical Christians".[68] The Alliance was formed in 1951 by Evangelicals from 21 countries. It has worked to support its members to work together globally.
The World Christian Database estimates the number of Evangelicals at 300 million, Pentecostals and Charismatics at 600 million and "Great Commission" Christians at 700 million. These groups are not mutually exclusive. Operation World estimates the number of Evangelicals at 550 million.[69]
From 1960 to 2000, the global growth of the number of reported Evangelicals grew three times the world's population rate, and twice that of Islam.[70]
Africa[edit]
In the 21st century, there are Evangelical churches active in Sudan, Angola, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Malawi, Rwanda, Uganda, Ghana, Kenya, Zambia, South Africa, and Nigeria. They have grown especially since independence came in the 1960s,[71] the strongest movements are based on Pentecostal-charismatic[clarification needed] beliefs, and comprise a way of life that has led to upward social mobility[dubious – discuss] and demands for democracy.[citation needed] There is a wide range of theology and organizations, including some sponsored by European missionaries and others that have emerged from African culture[dubious – discuss] such as the Apostolic and Zionist Churches which enlist 40% of black South Africans, and their Aladura counterparts in western Africa.[72][page needed]
In Nigeria the Evangelical Church Winning All (formerly "Evangelical Church of West Africa") is the largest church organization with five thousand congregations and over three million members. It sponsors two seminaries and eight Bible colleges, and 1600 missionaries who serve in Nigeria and other countries with the Evangelical Missionary Society (EMS). There have been serious confrontations since 1999 between Muslims and Evangelical Christians standing in opposition to the expansion of Sharia law in northern Nigeria. The confrontation has radicalized and politicized the Christians. Violence has been escalating.[73]
In Kenya, mainstream Evangelical denominations have taken the lead[dubious – discuss] in promoting political activism and backers, with the smaller Evangelical sects of less importance. Daniel arap Moi was president 1978 to 2002 and claimed to be an Evangelical; he proved intolerant of dissent or pluralism or decentralization of power.[74]
The Berlin Missionary Society (BMS) was one of four German Protestant mission societies active in South Africa before 1914. It emerged from the German tradition of Pietism after 1815 and sent its first missionaries to South Africa in 1834. There were few positive reports in the early years, but it was especially active 1859–1914. It was especially strong in the Boer republics. The World War cut off contact with Germany, but the missions continued at a reduced pace. After 1945 the missionaries had to deal with decolonisation across Africa and especially with the apartheid government. At all times the BMS emphasized spiritual inwardness, and values such as morality, hard work and self-discipline. It proved unable to speak and act decisively against injustice and racial discrimination and was disbanded in 1972.[75]
Since 1974, young professionals have been the active proselytizers of Evangelicalism in the cities of Malawi.[76]
In Mozambique, Evangelical Protestant Christianity emerged around 1900 from black migrants whose converted previously in South Africa. They were assisted by European missionaries, but, as industrial workers, they paid for their own churches and proselytizing. They prepared southern Mozambique for the spread of Evangelical Protestantism. During its time as a colonial power in Mozambique, the Catholic Portuguese government tried to counter the spread of Evangelical Protestantism.[77]
Latin America[edit]
In modern Latin America, the word "Evangelical" is often simply a synonym for "Protestant".[78][79][80]
Brazil[edit]



Universal Church of the Kingdom of God church in São Paulo
Main article: Protestantism in Brazil
Protestantism in Brazil largely originated with German immigrants and British and American missionaries in the 19th century, following up on efforts that began in the 1820s.[81]
In the late nineteenth century, while the vast majority of Brazilians were nominal Catholics, the nation was underserved by priests, and for large numbers their religion was only nominal. The Catholic Church in Brazil was de-established in 1890, and responded by increasing the number of dioceses and the efficiency of its clergy. Many Protestants came from a large German immigrant community, but they were seldom engaged in proselytism and grew mostly by natural increase.
Methodists were active along with Presbyterians and Baptists. The Scottish missionary Dr. Robert Reid Kalley, with support from the Free Church of Scotland, moved to Brazil in 1855, founding the first Evangelical church among the Portuguese-speaking population there in 1856. It was organized according to the Congregational policy as the Igreja Evangélica Fluminense; it became the mother church of Congregationalism in Brazil.[82] The Seventh-day Adventists arrived in 1894, and the YMCA was organized in 1896. The missionaries promoted schools colleges and seminaries, including a liberal arts college in São Paulo, later known as Mackenzie, and an agricultural school in Lavras. The Presbyterian schools in particular later became the nucleus of the governmental system. In 1887 Protestants in Rio de Janeiro formed a hospital. The missionaries largely reached a working-class audience, as the Brazilian upper-class was wedded either to Catholicism or to secularism. By 1914, Protestant churches founded by American missionaries had 47,000 communicants, served by 282 missionaries. In general, these missionaries were more successful than they had been in Mexico, Argentina or elsewhere in Latin America.[83]
There were 700,000 Protestants by 1930, and increasingly they were in charge of their own affairs. In 1930, the Methodist Church of Brazil became independent of the missionary societies and elected its own bishop. Protestants were largely from a working-class, but their religious networks help speed their upward social mobility.[84][85]
Protestants accounted for fewer than 5% of the population until the 1960s, but grew exponentially by proselytizing and by 2000 made up over 15% of Brazilians affiliated with a church. Pentecostals and charismatic groups account for the vast majority of this expansion.
Pentecostal missionaries arrived early in the 20th century. Pentecostal conversions surged during the 1950s and 1960s, when native Brazilians began founding autonomous churches. The most influential included Brasil Para o Cristo (Brazil for Christ), founded in 1955 by Manoel de Mello. With an emphasis on personal salvation, on God's healing power, and on strict moral codes these groups have developed broad appeal, particularly among the booming urban migrant communities. In Brazil, since the mid-1990's, groups committed to uniting black identity, antiracism, and Evangelical theology have rapidly proliferated.[86] Pentecostalism arrived in Brazil with Swedish and American missionaries in 1911. it grew rapidly, but endured numerous schisms and splits. In some areas the Evangelical Assemblies of God churches have taken a leadership role in politics since the 1960s. They claimed major credit for the election of Fernando Collor de Mello as president of Brazil in 1990.[87]
According to the 2000 Census, 15.4% of the Brazilian population was Protestant. A recent research conducted by the Datafolha institute shows that 25% of Brazilians are Protestants, of which 19% are followers of Pentecostal denominations. The 2010 Census found out that 22.2% were Protestant at that date. Protestant denominations saw a rapid growth in their number of followers since the last decades of the 20th century.[88] They are politically and socially conservative, and emphasize that God's favor translates into business success.[89] The rich and the poor remained traditional Catholics, while most Evangelical Protestants were in the new lower-middle class–known as the "C class" (in a A–E classification system).[90]
Chesnut argues that Pentecostalism has become "one of the principal organizations of the poor," for these churches provide the sort of social network that teach members the skills they need to thrive in a rapidly developing meritocratic society.[91]
One large Evangelical church is the Universal Church of the Kingdom of God (IURD), a neo‐Pentecostal denomination begun in 1977. It now has a presence in many countries, and claims millions of members worldwide.[92]
Guatemala[edit]
Protestants remained a small portion of the population until the late-twentieth century, when various Protestant groups experienced a demographic boom that coincided with the increasing violence of the Guatemalan Civil War. Two Guatemalan heads of state, General Efraín Ríos Montt and Jorge Serrano Elias, have been practicing Evangelical Protestants. They are the only two Protestant heads of state in the history of Latin America.[93][94]
General Efrain Rios Montt, an Evangelical from the Pentecostal tradition, came to power through a coup. He escalated the war against leftist guerrilla insurgents as a holy war against atheistic forces of evil.[95]
Asia[edit]
Korea[edit]
Main article: Christianity in Korea
Protestant missionary proselytism in Asia was most successful in Korea. American Presbyterians and Methodists arrived in the 1880s and were well received. Between 1907 and 1945, when Korea was a Japanese colony, Christianity became in part an expression of nationalism in opposition to Japan's efforts to promote the Japanese language and the Shinto religion.[96] In 1914, out of 16 million people, there were 86,000 Protestants and 79,000 Catholics; by 1934, the numbers were 168,000 and 147,000. Presbyterian missionaries were especially successful.[97] Since the Korean War (1950–53), many Korean Christians have migrated to the U.S., while those who remained behind have risen sharply in social and economic status. Most Korean Protestant churches in the 21st century emphasize their Evangelical heritage. Korean Protestantism is characterized by theological conservatism[clarification needed] coupled with an emotional revivalistic[clarification needed] style. Most churches sponsor revival meetings once or twice a year. Missionary work is a high priority, with 13,000 men and women serving in missions across the world, putting Korea in second place just behind the US.[98]
Sukman argues that since 1945, Protestantism has been widely seen by Koreans as the religion of the middle class, youth, intellectuals, urbanites, and modernists. It has been a powerful force[dubious – discuss] supporting South Korea's pursuit of modernity and emulation[dubious – discuss] of the United States, and opposition to the old Japanese colonialism and to the authoritarianism of North Korea.[99] There are 8.6 million adherents to Protestant Christianity (approximately 19% of the Korean population) in which many[quantify] identify themselves as Evangelicals.
South Korea has been referred as an "evangelical superpower" for being the home to some of the largest and most dynamic Christian churches in the world; South Korea is also second to the U.S. in the number of missionaries sent abroad.[100][101][102]
United Kingdom[edit]
There are an estimated 2 million Evangelicals in the UK.[103] According to research performed by the Evangelical Alliance in 2013, 87% of UK evangelicals attend Sunday morning church services every week and 63% attend weekly or fortnightly small groups.[104] An earlier survey conducted in 2012 found that 92% of evangelicals agree it is a Christian's duty to help those in poverty and 45% attend a church which has a fund or scheme that helps people in immediate need, and 42% go to a church that supports or runs a foodbank. 63% believe a tithing, and so give around 10% of their income to their church, Christian organisations and various charities[105] 83% of UK evangelicals believe that the Bible has supreme authority in guiding their beliefs, views and behaviour and 52% read or listen to the Bible daily.[106] The Evangelical Alliance, formed in 1846, was the first ecumenical evangelical body in the world and works to unite evangelicals, helping them listen to, and be heard by, the government, media and society.
United States[edit]
The contemporary North American usage of the term reflects the impact of the Fundamentalist–Modernist Controversy of the early 20th century. Evangelicalism may sometimes be perceived as the middle ground between the theological liberalism of the mainline denominations and the cultural separatism of fundamentalism.[107] Evangelicalism has therefore been described as "the third of the leading strands in American Protestantism, straddl[ing] the divide between fundamentalists and liberals".[108] In 2004 Andrew Crouch wrote in Christianity Today: "The emerging movement is a protest against much of evangelicalism as currently practiced. It is post-evangelical in the way that neo-evangelicalism (in the 1950s) was post-fundamentalist. It would not be unfair to call it postmodern evangelicalism."[109]
While the North American perception has a certain importance in understanding some usage of the term, it by no means dominates a wider global view: elsewhere the fundamentalist debate had less direct influence.
D.W. Cloud wrote: "In the first half of the 20th century, evangelicalism in America was largely synonymous with fundamentalism. George Marsden in Reforming Fundamentalism (1995) writes, "There was not a practical distinction between fundamentalist and evangelical: the words were interchangeable" (p. 48). When the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) formed in 1942, for example, participants included such fundamentalist leaders as Bob Jones, Sr., John R. Rice, Charles Woodbridge, Harry Ironside, and David Otis Fuller."[110]
By the mid-1950s, largely due to the ecumenical evangelism of Billy Graham, the terms Evangelicalism and fundamentalism began to refer to two different approaches. Fundamentalism aggressively attacked its liberal enemies; Evangelicalism downplayed liberalism and emphasized outreach and conversion of new members.[111]
While some conservative Evangelicals[which?] believe the label has broadened too much beyond its more limiting traditional distinctives, this trend is nonetheless strong enough to create significant ambiguity in the term.[112] As a result, the dichotomy between "Evangelical" and "mainline" denominations is increasingly complex, particularly with such innovations as the "emergent church" movement.
20th century[edit]
By the 1890s, most American Protestants belonged to Evangelical denominations, except for the high church Episcopalians and German Lutherans. In the early 20th century, a divide opened up between the Fundamentalists and the Mainline Protestant denominations, chiefly over the inerrancy of the Bible. The fundamentalists were those Evangelicals who sought to defend their religious traditions, and feared that modern scientific leanings were leading away from the truth. A favored mode of fighting back was to prohibit the teaching of Darwinism or macro-evolution as fact in the public schools, a movement that reached its peak in the Scopes Trial of 1925, and resumed in the 1980s. The more modernistic Protestants largely abandoned the term "evangelical" and tolerated evolutionary theories in modern science and even in Biblical studies.
Evangelicals held the view that the modernist and liberal parties in the Protestant churches had surrendered their heritage as Evangelicals by accommodating the views and values of secularism. At the same time, the modernists criticized fundamentalists for their separatism and their rejection of the Social Gospel.
During and after World War II, Evangelicals increasingly organized, and expanded their vision to include the entire world. There was a great expansion of Evangelical activity within the United States, "a revival of revivalism." Youth for Christ was formed; it later became the base for Billy Graham's revivals. The National Association of Evangelicals formed in 1942 as a counterpoise to the mainline Federal Council of Churches. In 1942–43, the Old-Fashioned Revival Hour had a record-setting national radio audience.[113][page needed]
Even more dramatic was the expansion of international missionary activity by the Evangelicals. They had enthusiasm and self-confidence after the national victory in the world war. Many Evangelicals came from poor rural districts, but wartime and postwar prosperity dramatically increased the funding resources available for missionary work. While mainline Protestant denominations cut back on their missionary activities, from 7000 to 3000 overseas workers between 1935 and 1980, the Evangelicals increased their career foreign missionary force from 12,000 in 1935 to 35,000 in 1980. Meanwhile Europe was falling behind, as North Americans comprised 41% of all the world's Protestant missionaries in 1936, rising to 52% in 1952 and 72% in 1969. The most active denominations were the Assemblies of God, which nearly tripled from 230 missionaries in 1935 to 626 in 1952, and the United Pentecostal Church International, formed in 1945. The Southern Baptists more than doubled from 405 to 855, as did the Church of the Nazarene from 88 to 200.[114] Overseas missionaries began to prepare for the postwar challenge, most notably the Far Eastern Gospel Crusade (FEGC; now named "Send International"). After Nazi Germany and fascist Japan had been destroyed, the newly mobilized Evangelicals were now prepared to combat atheistic communism, secularism, Darwinism, liberalism, Catholicism, and (in overseas missions) paganism.[115]
Meaning of Evangelicalism in the US[edit]
The Institute for the Study of American Evangelicals states:

There are three senses in which the term "evangelical" is used today at the beginning of the 21st-century. The first is to view "evangelical" as all Christians who affirm a few key doctrines and practical emphases. British historian David Bebbington approaches evangelicalism from this direction and notes four specific hallmarks of evangelical religion: conversionism, the belief that lives need to be changed; activism, the expression of the gospel in effort; biblicism, a particular regard for the Bible; and crucicentrism, a stress on the sacrifice of Christ on the cross.
A second sense is to look at evangelicalism as an organic group of movements and religious tradition. Within this context "evangelical" denotes a style as much as a set of beliefs. As a result, groups such as black Baptists and Dutch Reformed Churches, Mennonites and Pentecostals, Catholic charismatics and Southern Baptists all come under the evangelical umbrella, thus demonstrating just how diverse the movement really is.
A third sense of the term is as the self-ascribed label for a coalition that arose during the Second World War. This group came into being as a reaction against the perceived anti-intellectual, separatist, belligerent nature of the fundamentalist movement in the 1920s and 1930s. Importantly, its core personalities (like Harold John Ockenga and Billy Graham), institutions (for instance, Moody Bible Institute and Wheaton College), and organizations (such as the National Association of Evangelicals and Youth for Christ) have played a pivotal role in giving the wider movement a sense of cohesion that extends beyond these "card-carrying" evangelicals.[116]
Demographics[edit]



 An event at Gateway Church's 114 Southlake Campus
The 2004 survey of religion and politics in the United States identified the Evangelical percentage of the population at 26.3 percent while Roman Catholics are 22 percent and mainline Protestants make up 16 percent.[117] In the 2007 Statistical Abstract of the United States, the figures for these same groups are 28.6 percent (Evangelical), 24.5 percent (Roman Catholic), and 13.9 percent (mainline Protestant.) The latter figures are based on a 2001 study of the self-described religious identification of the adult population for 1990 and 2001 from the Graduate School and University Center at the City University of New York.[118] A 2008 study showed that in the year 2000 about 9 percent of Americans attended an Evangelical service on any given Sunday.[119][120] The Economist estimated in May 2012, that "over one-third of Americans, more than 100 M, can be considered evangelical," arguing that the percentage is often undercounted because many black Christians espouse Evangelical theology but prefer to refer to themselves as "born again Christians" rather than "evangelical."[121] These estimated figures given by The Economist agree with those in 2012 from Wheaton College's Institute for the Studies of American Evangelicals.[4]
The movement is highly diverse and encompasses a vast number of people. Because the group is diverse, not all of them use the same terminology for beliefs. For instance, several recent studies and surveys by sociologists and political scientists that utilize more complex definitional parameters have estimated the number of Evangelicals in the U.S. in 2012 at about 30–35% of the population, or roughly between 90 and 100 million people.[4]
The National Association of Evangelicals is a U.S. agency which coordinates cooperative ministry for its member denominations.
Types of Evangelical[edit]
John C. Green, a senior fellow at the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, used polling data to separate Evangelicals into three camps, which he labels as traditionalist, centrist and modernist:[107]
1.Traditionalists, characterized by high affinity for certain Protestant beliefs, (especially penal substitutionary atonement, justification by faith, the authority of scripture, the priesthood of all believers, etc.) which, when fused with the highly political milieu of Western culture (especially American culture), has resulted in the political disposition that has been labeled the Christian right, with figures like Jerry Falwell and the television evangelist Pat Robertson as its most visible spokesmen.
2.Centrist evangelicals, described as socially conservative, mostly avoiding politics, who still support much of traditional Christian theology.
3.Modernist evangelicals, a small minority in the movement, have low levels of church-attendance and "have much more diversity in their beliefs".[107]
Politics[edit]
Christian right[edit]
Main article: Christian right
Evangelical political influence in America was first evident in the 1830s with movements such as abolition of slavery and the prohibition movement, which closed saloons and taverns in state after state until it succeeded nationally in 1919.[122] The Christian right is a coalition of numerous groups of traditionalist and observant church-goers of every kind: especially Catholics on issues such as birth control and abortion, Southern Baptists, Missouri Synod Lutherans and others.[123]
Evangelical political activists are not all on the right. There is a small group of liberal white Evangelicals.[124] Most African Americans belong to Baptist, Methodist or other denominations that share Evangelical beliefs; they are firmly in the Democratic coalition and (except for gay and abortion issues) are generally liberal in politics.[125]
Christian left[edit]
Main article: Evangelical left



 This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (December 2014)
The evangelical left or progressive evangelicals are Christians aligned with evangelicalism in the United States who generally function on the left wing of the movement, either politically or theologically or both. While the evangelical left is related to the wider Christian left, those who are part of the latter category are not always viewed as evangelical.
Typically, members of the evangelical left affirm the primary tenets of evangelical theology, such as the doctrines of the Incarnation, atonement, and resurrection, and also see the Bible as a primary authority for the Church. Unlike many evangelicals, however, those on the evangelical left support what are often considered progressive or left wing political policies. They are often, for example, opposed to capital punishment and supportive of gun control and welfare programs. In many cases, they are also pacifists. Theologically they also often support and utilize modern biblical criticism, whereas more conservative evangelicals reject it. Some promote the legalization of same-sex marriage or protection of access to abortion for the society at large without necessarily endorsing the practice themselves.
There is considerable dispute over how to even characterize the various segments of the evangelical theological and political spectra, and whether a singular discernible rift between "right" and "left" is oversimplified. However, to the extent that some simplifications are necessary to discuss any complex issue, it is recognized that modern trends like focusing on non-contentious issues (like poverty) and downplaying hot-button social issues (like abortion) tend to be key distinctives of the modern "evangelical left" or "emergent church" movement.
While members of the evangelical left chiefly reside in mainline denominations, they are often heavily influenced by the Anabaptist social tradition.
Recurrent themes[edit]
Abortion[edit]
Since 1980, a central issue motivating conservative Evangelicals' political activism is abortion. The 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade by the Supreme Court, which legalized abortion, proved decisive in bringing together Catholics and Evangelicals in a political coalition, which became known as the Religious Right when it successfully mobilized its voters behind presidential candidate Ronald Reagan in 1980.[126]
Secularism[edit]
In the United States, Supreme Court decisions that outlawed organized prayer in school and restricted church-related schools also played a role in mobilizing the Religious Right.[127] In addition, questions of sexual morality and homosexuality have been energizing factors—and above all, the notion that "elites" are pushing America into secularism.
Christian nation[edit]
Opponents criticise the Evangelicals, whom they say actually want a Christian America—America being a nation in which Christianity is given a privileged position.[128] Survey data shows that "between 64 and 75 percent do not favor a 'Christian Nation' amendment", though between 60 and 75 percent also believe that Christianity and Political Liberalism are incompatible.[129] Evangelical leaders, in turn, counter that they merely seek freedom from the imposition by national elites of an equally subjective secular worldview, and feel that it is their opponents who are violating their rights.[130]
Media references[edit]
Many films offer differing views on evangelical, End Times and Rapture culture. One that offers a revealing view of the mindset of the Calvinist and premillennial dispensationalist element in evangelicalism is "Good People Go to Hell, Saved People Go to Heaven."[131]
Other issues[edit]

Unbalanced scales.svg
 The neutrality of this section is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (May 2013)
According to recent reports in the New York Times, some Evangelicals have sought to expand their movement's social agenda to include poverty, combating AIDS in the Third World, and protecting the environment.[132] This is highly contentious within the Evangelical community, since more conservative Evangelicals believe that this trend is compromising important issues and prioritizing popularity and consensus too highly. Personifying this division were the Evangelical leaders James Dobson and Rick Warren, the former who warned of the dangers of a Barack Obama victory in 2008 from his point of view,[133] in contrast with the latter who declined to endorse either major candidate on the grounds that he wanted the church to be less politically divisive and that he agreed substantially with both men.[134]
See also[edit]
10/40 Window
Biblical literalism
Broad church
Child evangelism movement
Christian eschatological views
Conservative Evangelicalism in Britain
Evangelical Council of Venezuela
Evangelical Fellowship of Canada
Fundamentalism
List of evangelical Christians
List of evangelical seminaries and theological colleges
National Association of Evangelicals
Pure Land Buddhism, in some important respects a parallel Buddhist tradition
World Evangelical Alliance
Footnotes[edit]
a.Jump up ^ Primarily in the United States, where Protestants are usually placed in one of two categories - Mainline or Evangelical.
Notes[edit]
1.Jump up ^ The Concise Oxford Dictionary. Oxford University Press. 1978.
2.Jump up ^ Operation World
3.Jump up ^ Christianity report
4.^ Jump up to: a b c d How Many Evangelicals Are There?, Wheaton College: Institute for the Study of American Evangelicals
5.^ Jump up to: a b Noll 2004, pp. 16.
6.Jump up ^ Johnson, Phil (2009-03-16). "The History of Evangelicalism". Pulpit Magazine. Part 1.
7.Jump up ^ Livingstone, Elizabeth A (2005). The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (3rd ed. rev ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 583. ISBN 0-19-280290-9.
8.Jump up ^ Gerstner, John H. (1975). "The Theological Boundaries of Evangelical Faith". In David P. Wells. The Evangelicals. John D. Woodbridge. Nashville: Abingdon Press. pp. 21–36. ISBN 0-687-12181-7. "Despite the dominant usage of euangellismos in the New Testament, its derivative, evangelical, was not widely or controversially employed until the Reformation period. Then it came into prominence with Martin Luther precisely because he reasserted Paul's teaching on the euangellismos as the indispensable message of salvation. Its light, he argued, was hidden under a bushel of ecclesiastical authority, tradition, and liturgy. The essence of the saving message for Luther was justification by faith alone, the article by which not only the church stands or falls but each individual as well. Erasmus, Thomas More, and Johannes Eck denigrated those who accepted this view and referred to them as 'evangelicals.'"
9.Jump up ^ Marsden 1991, pp. 2.
10.Jump up ^ Bebbington 1993, pp. 1.
11.Jump up ^ Gove, Philip Babcock, ed. (1971). Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language. Springfield, MA: G & C Merriam. ISBN 978-0-87779-101-0. "evangelical [...] 5 [...] characterized by or reflecting a missionary, reforming, or redeeming impulse or purpose [...] <the rise and fall of evangelical fervor [sic] within the Socialist movement – Time Lit. Supp.>"
12.Jump up ^ Trueman 2011, pp. 14.
13.Jump up ^ Bebbington 1993, pp. 3.
14.Jump up ^ Bebbington 1993, pp. 5-8.
15.Jump up ^ Bebbington 1993, pp. 12-14.
16.Jump up ^ Bebbington 1993, pp. 15-16.
17.Jump up ^ Bebbington 1993, pp. 12.
18.Jump up ^ Mohler 2011, pp. 117.
19.^ Jump up to: a b c Dale M. Coulter, "The Two Wings of Evangelicalism", First Things (November 5, 2013). Accessed December 17, 2014.
20.Jump up ^ Stanley 2013, pp. 27-28.
21.Jump up ^ Bauder 2011, pp. 30-32.
22.Jump up ^ Marsden 1991, pp. 3-4.
23.^ Jump up to: a b Olson 2011, pp. 241-242.
24.Jump up ^ Reimer 2003, pp. 29.
25.Jump up ^ Mohler 2011, pp. 103-104.
26.Jump up ^ Stanley 2013, pp. 58.
27.Jump up ^ Marsden 1991, pp. 75.
28.Jump up ^ Roger E. Olson, "Postconservative Evangelicals Greet the Postmodern Age", The Christian Century (May 3, 1995), pp. 480-483. Accessed December 16, 2014.
29.Jump up ^ Randall 2005, p. 52.
30.Jump up ^ Tomlinson 2007, p. 28.
31.Jump up ^ Balmer 2002, pp. vii–viii.
32.Jump up ^ Noll 2004, pp. 50.
33.Jump up ^ Balmer 2002, pp. 542-543.
34.Jump up ^ Longfield 2013, pp. 7.
35.Jump up ^ Noll 2004, pp. 44, 112.
36.Jump up ^ Noll 2004, pp. 54-55.
37.Jump up ^ Noll 2004, pp. 46-47.
38.Jump up ^ Noll 2004, pp. 66-67.
39.Jump up ^ Noll 2004, pp. 76.
40.Jump up ^ Bebbington 1993, pp. 74.
41.Jump up ^ Bebbington 1993, pp. 42.
42.Jump up ^ Bebbington 1993, pp. 43.
43.Jump up ^ Noll 2004, pp. 76-78.
44.Jump up ^ Lovelace, Richard F (2007). The American Pietism of Cotton Mather: Origins of American Evangelicalism. Wipf & Stock.
45.Jump up ^ Noll 2004, pp. 77.
46.Jump up ^ Noll 2004, pp. 81–82.
47.Jump up ^ Noll 2004, pp. 79.
48.^ Jump up to: a b c Bebbington 1993, pp. 20.
49.Jump up ^ Noll 2004, pp. 79-80.
50.Jump up ^ Noll 2004, pp. 84.
51.Jump up ^ Noll 2004, pp. 85.
52.Jump up ^ Noll 2004, pp. 97.
53.Jump up ^ Shantz, Douglas H (2013). An Introduction to German Pietism: Protestant Renewal at the Dawn of Modern Europe. JHU. pp. 279–80.
54.Jump up ^ Noll 2004, pp. 87.
55.Jump up ^ Snead, Jennifer (2010), "Print, Predestination, and the Public Sphere: Transatlantic Evangelical Periodicals, 1740–1745", Early American Literature 45 (1): 93–118, doi:10.1353/eal.0.0092.
56.Jump up ^ Stout, Harold 'Harry' (1991), The Divine Dramatist: George Whitefield and the Rise of Modern Evangelicalism.
57.Jump up ^ Bebbington, David W (Jan 2002), "The Evangelical Revival in Britain in the Nineteenth Century", Kyrkohistorisk Arsskrift: 63–70.
58.Jump up ^ Bebbington, David W (2007), "The Evangelical Conscience", Welsh Journal of Religious History 2 (1): 27–44.
59.Jump up ^ Bebbington, David W (1996), "The Holiness Movements in British and Canadian Methodism in the Late Nineteenth Century", Proceedings of the Wesley Historical Society 50 (6): 203–28.
60.Jump up ^ Sweetnam, Mark S (2010), "Defining Dispensationalism: A Cultural Studies Perspective", Journal of Religious History 34 (2): 191–212, doi:10.1111/j.1467-9809.2010.00862.x.
61.Jump up ^ Bebbington, David W (2005), Dominance of Evangelicalism: The Age of Spurgeon and Moody
62.Jump up ^ Findlay, James F (1969), Dwight L. Moody: American Evangelist, 1837–1899.
63.Jump up ^ Hoffecker, W. Andrew (1981), Piety and the Princeton Theologians, Nutley: Presbyterian & Reformed, v.
64.Jump up ^ Henry, Carl FH (August 29, 2003) [1947], The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism (reprint ed.), Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, ISBN 0-8028-2661-X.
65.Jump up ^ Zoba, Wendy Murray, The Fundamentalist-Evangelical Split, Belief net, retrieved July 2005.
66.Jump up ^ Global Christianity: A Report on the Size and Distribution of the World's Christian Population (PDF), Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, December 19, 2011, p. 67.
67.^ Jump up to: a b Johnstone; Mandryk. "Operation World". Retrieved August 31, 2014.
68.Jump up ^ "WEA". World Evangelical Alliance. 2015. Archived from the original on 2015-03-15. Retrieved 2015-03-15.
69.Jump up ^ "Lausanne Movement". Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization. 2015. Archived from the original on 2015-03-15. Retrieved 2007-05-24.
70.Jump up ^ Milne, Bruce (2010). Know the Truth: A Handbook of Christian Belief. InterVarsity Press. p. 332. ISBN 0-83082-576-2. Retrieved August 31, 2014.
71.Jump up ^ Freston, Paul (2004), Evangelicals and Politics in Asia, Africa and Latin America, pp. 107–90.
72.Jump up ^ Ranger 2008.
73.Jump up ^ Ranger 2008, pp. 37–66.
74.Jump up ^ Ranger 2008, pp. 66–94.
75.Jump up ^ Pakendorf, Gunther (2011), "A Brief History of the Berlin Mission Society in South Africa", History Compass 9 (2): 106–18, doi:10.1111/j.1478-0542.2009.00624.x.
76.Jump up ^ van Dijk, Richard A (1992), "Young Puritan Preachers In Post-Independence Malawi", Africa (Edinburgh University Press) 62 (2): 159–81, doi:10.2307/1160453.
77.Jump up ^ Harries, Patrick (1988), "Christianity in Black and White: The Establishment of Protestant Churches in Southern Mozambique", Lusotopie: 317–33.
78.Jump up ^ Larsen, Timothy; Treier, Daniel J (12 April 2007). The Cambridge Companion to Evangelical Theology. Cambridge University Press. p. 261. ISBN 978-1-139-82750-8. Retrieved 14 July 2013.
79.Jump up ^ "U.S. Hispanics Are Becoming Less Catholic". Time. March 1, 2013. Retrieved 14 July 2013.
80.Jump up ^ "Religion in Latin America: Hola, Luther". The Economist. November 8, 2008. Retrieved 14 July 2013.
81.Jump up ^ Leonard, Émil-G (1963), O Protestantismo Brasileiro [Brazilian Protestantism] (in Portuguese), São Paulo: ASTE.
82.Jump up ^ Testa, Michael (1964), "The Apostle of Madeira.", Journal of Presbyterian History 42 (4): 244–71 |chapter= ignored (help).
83.Jump up ^ Latourette, Kenneth Scott (1943), A history of the expansion of Christianity, V: The great century in the Americas, Austral-Asia, and Africa: A.D. 1800 – A.D. 1914, pp. 120–3.
84.Jump up ^ Latourette, Kenneth Scott (1945), A history of the expansion of Christianity, VII: Advance through Storm: A.D. 1914 and after, with concluding generalizations, pp. 181–2.
85.Jump up ^ Braga, Erasmo; Trubb, Kenneth G (1932), The Republic of Brazil: A survey of the religious situation[unreliable source?]
86.Jump up ^ Burdick, John (2005), "Why is the Black Evangelical Movement Growing in Brazil?", Journal of Latin American Studies 37 (2): 311–32, doi:10.1017/s0022216x05009028.
87.Jump up ^ Chesnut, R. Andrew (1999), "The Salvation Army or the Army's Salvation?: Pentecostal Politics in Amazonian Brazil, 1962–1992", Luso-Brazilian Review 36 (2): 33–49.
88.Jump up ^ Birman, Patrícia; Leite, Márcia Pereira (2000), "Whatever Happened to What Used to Be the Largest Catholic Country in the World?" (JSTOR), Daedalus 129 (2): 271–90.
89.Jump up ^ Londono, Diana (Dec 5, 2012), "Evangelicals in Brazil", Hemispheric Affairs (Coha).
90.Jump up ^ Antunes, Anderson (Jan 17, 2013), "The Richest Pastors In Brazil", Forbes.
91.Jump up ^ Chesnut 1997, p. 104.
92.Jump up ^ Jacob, CR; Hees, DR; Waniez, P; Brustlein, V (2003), Atlas da Filiação Religiosa e Indicadores Sociais no Brasil [Brazilian Religious Affiliation & Social Indicators Atlas] (in Portuguese), São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro: PUC-Rio, Edições Loyola, ISBN 85-15-02719-4.
93.Jump up ^ Garrard-Burnett. Protestantism in Guatemala. pp. 138–61.
94.Jump up ^ Garrard-Burnett, Virginia (2011). Terror in the Land of the Holy Spirit: Guatemala under General Efrain Rios Montt 1982–1983. New York: Oxford University Press.
95.Jump up ^ Chesnut 1997, p. 145.
96.Jump up ^ Kane, Danielle; Park, Jung Mee (2009), "The Puzzle of Korean Christianity: Geopolitical Networks and Religious Conversion in Early Twentieth-Century East Asia", American Journal of Sociology 115 (2): 365–404, doi:10.1086/599246.
97.Jump up ^ Latourette, Kenneth Scott (1945), A history of the expansion of Christianity:, VII: Advance through Storm: A.D. 1914 and after, with concluding generalizations, pp. 401–7.
98.Jump up ^ Ryu, Dae Young (2008), "The Origin and Characteristics of Evangelical Protestantism in Korea at the Turn of the Twentieth Century", Church History 77 (2): 371–98, doi:10.1017/S0009640708000589.
99.Jump up ^ Sukman, Jang (2004), "Historical Currents and Characteristics of Korean Protestantism after Liberation", Korea Journal 44 (4): 133–56.[unreliable source?]
100.Jump up ^ Ferguson, Tessa (March 9, 2011). "Professor explains religion's popularity in South Korea". ASU News. Arizona State University: The State Press. Retrieved 2013-07-25.
101.Jump up ^ "Missions Incredible". Christianity Today. 2006-01-03. Retrieved 2013-07-25.
102.Jump up ^ "Born Again: Evangelicalism in Korea". Hawai’i: UH Press. 2013-06-14. Retrieved 2013-07-25.
103.Jump up ^ Churchgoing the UK published by Tearfund 2007
104.Jump up ^ Life in the Church published Evangelical Alliance 2013
105.Jump up ^ Does Money Matter? published by Evangelical Alliance 2012
106.Jump up ^ 21st Century Evangelicals published by Evangelical Alliance 2010
107.^ Jump up to: a b c Luo, Michael (2006-04-16). "Evangelicals Debate the Meaning of 'Evangelical'". The New York Times.
108.Jump up ^ Mead, Walter Russell (2006). "God's Country?". Foreign Affairs. Council on Foreign Relations. Retrieved 2008-03-27.
109.Jump up ^ Crouch, Andrew (November 2004), "The Emergent Mystique", Christianity Today.
110.Jump up ^ Cloud, DW (December 1, 2009), What is the Emerging Church, Way of Life.
111.Jump up ^ Balmer 2002, p. 232.
112.Jump up ^ Marsden 1991.
113.Jump up ^ Carpenter 1999.
114.Jump up ^ Carpenter, Joel A (1997), Revive Us Again: The Reawakening of American Fundamentalism, pp. 184–5.
115.Jump up ^ Miller-Davenport, Sarah (2013), "'Their blood shall not be shed in vain': American Evangelical Missionaries and the Search for God and Country in Post–World War II Asia", Journal of American History 99 (4): 1109–32, doi:10.1093/jahist/jas648.
116.Jump up ^ "Defining the Term in Contemporary Context", Defining Evangelicalism, Wheaton College: Institute for the Study of American Evangelicals.
117.Jump up ^ Green, John C. "The American Religious Landscape and Political Attitudes: A Baseline for 2004" (PDF) (survey). The Pew forum.
118.Jump up ^ Kosmin, Barry A.; Mayer, Egon; Keysar, Ariela (2001). "American Religious Identification Survey" (PDF). City University of New York; Graduate School and University Center. Retrieved 2007-04-04.
119.Jump up ^ Olson, David T (2008), The American Church in Crisis, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 240pp.
120.Jump up ^ "125 Surprising Facts", The American church (MS POWERPOINT) (presentation).
121.Jump up ^ "Lift every voice". The Economist. May 5, 2012.
122.Jump up ^ Clark, Norman H (1976), Deliver Us from Evil: An Interpretation of American Prohibition.
123.Jump up ^ "The Triumph of the Religious Right", The Economist November 11, 2004.
124.Jump up ^ Shields, Jon A (2009), The Democratic Virtues of the Christian Right, pp. 117, 121.
125.Jump up ^ Heineman, God is a Conservative, pp 71–2, 173
126.Jump up ^ Dudley, Jonathan (2011). Broken Words: The Abuse of Science and Faith in American Politics. Crown Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0-385-52526-8. Retrieved February 24, 2015..
127.Jump up ^ Heineman, Kenneth J. (1998). God is a Conservative: Religion, Politics and Morality in Contemporary America. pp. 44–123. ISBN 978-0-8147-3554-1.
128.Jump up ^ Dershowitz, Alan M (2007), Blasphemy: how the religious right is hijacking our Declaration of Independence, p. 121.
129.Jump up ^ Smith, Christian (2002). Christian America?: What Evangelicals Really Want. p. 207.[unreliable source?]
130.Jump up ^ Limbaugh, David (2003). Persecution: How Liberals are Waging War Against Christians. Regnery. ISBN 0-89526-111-1.[unreliable source?]
131.Jump up ^ See "Good People Go to Hell, Saved People Go to Heaven"
132.Jump up ^ Kirkpatrick, David D (October 28, 2007). "The Evangelical Crackup". The New York Times Magazine.
133.Jump up ^ "Edge Boss - contribution=Focus fam action" (PDF). Akamai. Retrieved 2010-08-02.[dead link]
134.Jump up ^ Vu, Michelle A (July 29, 2008). "Rick Warren: Pastors Shouldn't Endorse Politicians". Christian post. Retrieved October 25, 2011.
Bibliography[edit]
Balmer, Randall Herbert (2002), Encyclopedia of Evangelicalism, Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, ISBN 978-0-664-22409-7, retrieved October 25, 2011.
Bauder, Kevin (2011), "Fundamentalism", in Naselli, Andrew; Hansen, Collin, Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, ISBN 978-0-310-55581-0
Bebbington, David W (1993), Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s, London: Routledge
Chesnut, R. Andrew (1997), Born Again in Brazil: The Pentecostal Boom and the Pathogens of Poverty, Rutgers University Press.
Longfield, Bradley J. (2013), Presbyterians and American Culture: A History, Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster Johh Knox Press
Marsden, George M (1991), Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism, Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, ISBN 0-8028-0539-6
Mohler, Albert (2011), "Confessional Evangelicalism", in Naselli, Andrew; Hansen, Collin, Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, ISBN 978-0-310-55581-0
Noll, Mark A. (2004), The Rise of Evangelicalism: The Age of Edwards, Whitefield and the Wesleys, Inter-Varsity, ISBN 1-84474-001-3
Olson, Roger (2011), "Postconservative Evangelicalism", in Naselli, Andrew; Hansen, Collin, Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, ISBN 978-0-310-55581-0
Randall, Kelvin (2005), Evangelicals etcetera: conflict and conviction in the Church of England
Ranger, Terence O, ed. (2008), Evangelical Christianity and Democracy in Africa, Oxford University Press.
Reimer, Sam (2003). Evangelicals and the Continental Divide: The Conservative Protestant Subculture in Canada and the United States. McGill-Queen's Press.
Stanley, Brian (2013). The Global Diffusion of Evangelicalism: The Age of Billy Graham and John Stott. IVP Academic. ISBN 978-0-8308-2585-1.
Tomlinson, Dave (2007). The Post-Evangelical. ISBN 0-310-25385-3.
Trueman, Carl (2011), The Real Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, Moody Publishers
Further reading[edit]
Balmer, Randall Herbert (2004), Encyclopedia of Evangelicalism (EXCERPT AND TEXT SEARCH) (2nd ed.); online.
——— (2010), The Making of Evangelicalism: From Revivalism to Politics and Beyond, ISBN 978-1-60258-243-9.
——— (2000), Blessed Assurance: A History of Evangelicalism in America
Bastian, Jean-Pierre (1994), Le Protestantisme en Amérique latine: une approche sio-historique [Protestantism in Latin America: a sio‐historical approach], Histoire et société (in French) (27), Genève: Labor et Fides, ISBN 2-8309-0684-5; alternative ISBN on back cover, 2-8309-0687-X; 324 pp.
Beale, David O (1986), In Pursuit of Purity: American Fundamentalism Since 1850, Greenville, SC: Bob Jones University: Unusual, ISBN 0-89084-350-3.
Bebbington, D. W. (1989), Evangelicals in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s, London: Unwin.
Carpenter, Joel A. (1980), "Fundamentalist Institutions and the Rise of Evangelical Protestantism, 1929–1942", Church History 49: 62–75, doi:10.2307/3164640.
——— (1999), Revive Us Again: The Reawakening of American Fundamentalism, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-512907-5.
Chapman, Mark B., "American Evangelical Attitudes Toward Catholicism: Post-World War II to Vatican II," U.S. Catholic Historian, 33#1 (Winter 2015), 25-54.
Freston, Paul (2004), Evangelicals and Politics in Asia, Africa and Latin America, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-60429-X.
Hindmarsh, Bruce (2005), The Evangelical Conversion Narrative: Spiritual Autobiography in Early Modern England, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kidd, Thomas S (2007), The Great Awakening: The Roots of Evangelical Christianity in Colonial America, Yale University Press.
Knox, Ronald (1950), Enthusiasm: a Chapter in the History of Religion, with Special Reference to the XVII and XVIII Centuries, Oxford, Eng: Oxford University Press, pp. viii, 622 pp.
Marsden, George M (1991), Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism (excerpt and text search).
——— (1987), Reforming Fundamentalism: Fuller Seminary and the New Evangelicalism, Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans.
Noll, Mark A (1992), A History of Christianity in the United States and Canada, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, pp. 311–89, ISBN 0-8028-0651-1.
Noll, Mark A; Bebbington, David W; Rawlyk, George A, eds. (1994), Evangelicalism: Comparative Studies of Popular Protestantism in North America, the British Isles and Beyond, 1700–1990.
Pierard, Richard V. (1979), "The Quest For the Historical Evangelicalism: A Bibliographical Excursus", Fides et Historia 11 (2): 60–72.
Price, Robert M. (1986), "Neo-Evangelicals and Scripture: A Forgotten Period of Ferment", Christian Scholars Review 15 (4): 315–30.
Rawlyk, George A; Noll, Mark A, eds. (1993), Amazing Grace: Evangelicalism in Australia, Britain, Canada, and the United States.
Schafer, Axel R (2011), Countercultural Conservatives: American Evangelicalism From the Postwar Revival to the New Christian Right, U. of Wisconsin Press, 225 pp; covers evangelical politics from the 1940s to the 1990s that examines how a diverse, politically pluralistic movement became, largely, the Christian Right.
Smith, Timothy L (1957), Revivalism and Social Reform: American Protestantism on the Eve of the Civil War.
Stackhouse, John G (1993), Canadian Evangelicalism in the Twentieth Century
Sutton, Matthew Avery. American Apocalypse: A history of modern evangelicalism (2014)
Utzinger, J. Michael (2006), Yet Saints Their Watch Are Keeping: Fundamentalists, Modernists, and the Development of Evangelical Ecclesiology, 1887–1937, Macon: Mercer University Press, ISBN 0-86554-902-8.
Ward, WR (2006), Early Evangelicalism: A Global Intellectual History (Amazon excerpt and text search), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wigger, John H; Hatch, Nathan O, eds. (2001), Methodism and the Shaping of American Culture (AMAZON EXCERPT AND TEXT SEARCH) (essays by scholars).
Wright, Bradley (March 21, 2013), "Black, White & Gray", The Economist, Evangelical Christianity in America (Patheos) |chapter= ignored (help).
Missions[edit]
Anderson, Gerald H, ed. (1998), Biographical dictionary of Christian missions, Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
Bainbridge, William F (1882), Around the World Tour of Christian Missions: A Universal Survey (AMAZON FULL TEXT ONLINE), 583 pp.
Barrett, David, ed. (1982), World Christian Encyclopedia, Oxford University Press.
Brown, Candy Gunther, ed. (2011), Global Pentecostal and Charismatic Healing (essays by scholars on different countries), Oxford UP, 400 pp.
Etherington, Norman, ed. (2008), Missions and Empire, Oxford History of the British Empire Companion.
Gailey, Charles R; Culbertson, Howard (2007), Discovering Missions, Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press.
Glover, Robert H; Kane, J Herbert (1960), The Progress of World-Wide Missions, Harper & Row.
Hutchison, William R (1987), Errand to the World: American Protestant Thought and Foreign Missions.
Jenkins, Philip (2011), The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity (AMAZON EXCERPT AND TEXT SEARCH) (3rd ed.), Oxford UP.
Kane, J. Herbert (1982), A Concise History of the Christian World Mission, Baker.
Koschorke, Klaus (2007), A History of Christianity in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, 1450–1990: A Documentary Sourcebook (GOOGLE BOOKS), et al., Wm. B. Eerdmans Amazon excerpts, text search and table of contents.
Latourette, Kenneth Scott, A History of the Expansion of Christianity, (1938–45) (detailed scholarly history), 7 volumes.
Moreau, A. Scott (2000), Evangelical Dictionary of World Missions, et al, Baker.
Neill, Stephen (1986), A History of Christian Missions, Penguin.
Newcomb, Harvey (1860), A Cyclopedia of Missions: Containing a Comprehensive View of Missionary Operations Throughout the World with Geographical Descriptions, and Accounts of the Social, Moral, and Religious Condition of the People (GOOGLE BOOKS), 792 pp.
Pocock, Michael; van Rheenen, Gailyn; McConnell, Douglas (2005), The Changing Face of World Missions: Engaging Contemporary Issues and Trends; 391 pp.
Shenk, Wilbert R, ed. (2004), North American Foreign Missions, 1810–1914: Theology, Theory, and Policy (AMAZON EXCERPTS AND TEXT SEARCH). 349 pp; important essays by scholars.
Tejirian, Eleanor H; Simon, Reeva Spector, eds. (2012), Conflict, Conquest, and Conversion: Two Thousand Years of Christian Missions in the Middle East, Columbia University Press, 280 pp; focus on the 19th and 20th centuries.
Tucker, Ruth (2004), From Jerusalem to Irian Jaya.
——— (1988), Guardians of the Great Commission.
External links[edit]
 Look up evangelist, evangelical, or evangelicalism in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Institute for the Study of American Evangelicalism, Wheaton College.
Spencer, Michael (March 10, 2009), "The Coming Evangelical Collapse", The Christian Science Monitor.
Modern Evangelical African Theologians: A Primer, Need not fret.
American Evangelicalism and Islam: From the Antichrist to the Mahdi, DE: Qantara.
Operation World – Statistics from around the world including numbers of Evangelicals by country.
World Evangelical Alliance (WEA)



[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
History of Christianity





































The Nicene Creed at the First Council of Nicaea



















































































































































































































































































































[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Christianity















Stained glass at St John's Ashfield, illustrating Jesus' description of himself, "I am the Good Shepherd", from the Gospel of John, chapter 10, verse 11.















































































































































Category
Portal icon
WikiProject





Authority control
NDL: 00616777
 

  



Categories: Evangelicalism
Christian missions
Christian terminology
Christian theological movements











































Navigation menu




Create account
Log in




Article

Talk












Read

Edit

View history

























Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
العربية
Arpetan
Asturianu
Беларуская
Български
Català
Cebuano
Čeština
Dansk
Deutsch
Ελληνικά
Español
Esperanto
Euskara
فارسی
Français
한국어
Bahasa Indonesia
Interlingua
Italiano
עברית
Ladino
Latina
Lietuvių
Lumbaart
Македонски
Nederlands
日本語
Norsk bokmål
Polski
Português
Русский
Simple English
Slovenčina
Slovenščina
Српски / srpski
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Suomi
Svenska
Українська
Tiếng Việt
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 19 June 2015, at 09:53.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
    
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicalism#Conservative_Evangelicalism












Christian right

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Part of a series on
Christianity
Jesus depicted as the Good Shepherd



Jesus ·
 Christ
 [show]











Bible ·
 Foundations
 [show]














Theology[show]

























History ·
 Tradition
 [show]























Related topics[show]




















Denominations ·
 Groups
 [show]









































Christian cross Christianity portal
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Part of a series on
Conservatism
Blue flag waving.svg

Variants[show]























Concepts[show]

















People[show]









































































































Organizations[show]

















Religious[hide]
Islamic Conservatism ·
 Conservative Christianity ·
 Traditionalist Catholics ·
 Christian right ·
 High Church Anglicanism
 

National variants[show]

















Related topics[show]























Conservatism portal
Politics portal

v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Christian right or religious right is a term used in the United States to describe right-wing Christian political factions that are characterized by their strong support of socially conservative policies. Christian conservatives principally seek to apply their understanding of the teachings of Christianity to politics and public policy by proclaiming the value of those teachings or by seeking to use those teachings to influence law and public policy.[1]
In the U.S., the Christian right is an informal coalition formed around a core of evangelical Protestants and Catholics.[2][3][4] The Christian right draws additional support from politically conservative mainline Protestants, Jews, and Mormons.[2][5] The movement has its roots in American politics going back as far as the 1940s and has been especially influential since the 1970s.[6][7] Their influence draws, in part, from grassroots activism as well as their focus on social issues and ability to motivate the electorate around those issues.[8] The Christian right is notable today for advancing socially conservative positions on issues including school prayer, intelligent design, stem cell research,[9] homosexuality,[10] contraception, abortion,[11] and pornography.[12]
Although the Christian right is usually associated with the U.S., similar movements have been a key factor in the politics of Canada, the Netherlands, Northern Ireland and Australia, among others.



Contents  [hide]
1 Terminology
2 History 2.1 Ability to organize 2.1.1 Grassroots activism
2.1.2 Political leaders and institutions

3 Institutions in the United States 3.1 National organizations
3.2 Partisan activity of churches
3.3 Electoral activity
3.4 Education
3.5 Media
4 Views 4.1 Education
4.2 Evolution
4.3 Sexual education
4.4 Homeschooling
4.5 Politics 4.5.1 Role of government
4.5.2 Separation of Church and State
4.5.3 Economics
4.5.4 The Middle East
4.6 Abortion and contraception
4.7 Biotechnology
4.8 Sex and sexuality
5 Criticism 5.1 Interpretation of Christianity
5.2 Race and diversity
5.3 LGBT rights
5.4 Use of Dominionism Labeling
6 Environment
7 Movements outside the United States 7.1 Canada
7.2 The Netherlands
7.3 Other countries
8 Associated minor political parties
9 See also
10 Notes
11 Further reading

Terminology[edit]
The Christian right is "also known as the New Christian Right (NCR) or the Religious Right", although some consider the religious right to be "a slightly broader category than Christian Right".[6][13]
John C. Green of the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life states that Jerry Falwell used the label religious right to describe himself. Gary Schneeberger, vice president of media and public relations for Focus on the Family, states that "[t]erms like 'religious right' have been traditionally used in a pejorative way to suggest extremism. The phrase 'socially conservative evangelicals' is not very exciting, but that's certainly the way to do it."[14]
Evangelical leaders like Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council have called attention to the problem of equating the term "Christian right" with evangelicals. Although evangelicals constitute the core constituency of the Christian right, not all evangelicals fit the description. The problem of description is further complicated by the fact that religious conservative may refer to other groups. Mennonites and the Amish, for example, are theologically conservative, however there are no overtly political organizations associated with these denominations.
History[edit]



Jerry Falwell, whose founding of the Moral Majority was a key step in the formation of the "New Christian Right"
The Christian right has been a notable force in both the Republican party and American politics since the late 1970s, when Baptist pastor Jerry Falwell and other Christian leaders began to urge conservative Christians to involve themselves in the political process. In response to the rise of the Christian right, the 1980 Republican Party platform assumed a number of its positions, including dropping support for the Equal Rights Amendment and adding support for a restoration of school prayer. While the platform also opposed abortion[6][7][15] and leaned towards restricting taxpayer funding for abortions and passing a constitutional amendment which would restore protection of the right to life for unborn children,[15] it also accepted that many Americans, including fellow Republicans, were divided on the issue.[15] Since about 1980, the Christian right has been associated with several institutions including the Moral Majority, the Christian Coalition, Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council.[16][17]
While the influence of the Christian right is typically traced to the 1980 Presidential election, Daniel K. Williams argues in God's Own Party that it had actually been involved in politics for most of the twentieth century. He also notes that the Christian right had previously been in alliance with the Republican Party in the 1940s through 1960s on matters such as opposition to communism and defending "a Protestant-based moral order."[18]
Into the 1960 election, Catholics and evangelicals worked against each other, as evangelicals mobilized their forces to defeat Catholics Al Smith in 1928 and John F. Kennedy in 1960.[19] Secularization came to be seen by Protestants as the biggest threat to Christian values, however,[20] and by the 1980s Catholic bishops and evangelicals had begun to work together on issues such as abortion.[4][21][22]
The alienation of Southern Democrats from the Democratic Party contributed to the rise of the right, as the counterculture of the 1960s provoked fear of social disintegration. In addition, as the Democratic Party became identified with a pro-choice position on abortion and with nontraditional societal values, social conservatives joined the Republican Party in increasing numbers.[23]
In 1976, U.S. President Jimmy Carter received the support of the Christian right largely because of his much-acclaimed religious conversion. However, Carter's spiritual transformation did not compensate for his liberal policies in the minds of Christian conservatives, as reflected in Jerry Falwell's criticism that "Americans have literally stood by and watched as godless, spineless leaders have brought our nation floundering to the brink of death."[24]
Ability to organize[edit]
The contemporary Christian right became increasingly vocal and organized in reaction to a series of United States Supreme Court decisions, most notably Bob Jones University v. Simon and Bob Jones University v. United States. It has also engaged in battles over pornography, obscenity, abortion, state sanctioned prayer in public schools, textbook contents (concerning creationism), homosexuality, and sexual education. It was long believed that the Supreme Court's decision to make abortion a Constitution-protected right in the 1973 Roe v Wade ruling was the driving force behind the New Christian Right Movement's rise in the 1970s.[25] Despite the large grassroots campaigns that were organized by the movement to protest the Roe decision, comments made by senior figures, including the movement's chief architect Paul Weyrich, have suggested that the New Christian Right Movement's rise was not centered around the issue of abortion, but rather Bob Jones University's refusal to comply with the Supreme Court's 1971 Green v. Connally ruling that permitted the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to collect penalty taxes from private religious schools that violated federal laws.[25] Biblical scholar and Religious Right critic Randall Balmer alleged that discussions he had with various New Christian Right Movement activists in the years following Roe v. Wade showed that there was widespread reluctance within the movement to push for new laws which would outlaw all forms of abortion.[25]



 Demonstrators at the 2004 March for Life in Washington D.C.
In Thy Kingdom Come, Balmer recounted comments that Weyrich made at a conference sponsored by a Religious Right organization, that they both attended in Washington in 1990:[25]
“ In the course of one of the sessions, Weyrich tried to make a point to his Religious Right brethren (no women attended the conference, as I recall). Let's remember, he said animatedly, that the Religious Right did not come together in response to the Roe decision. No, Weyrich insisted, what got us going as a political movement was the attempt on the part of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to rescind the tax-exempt status of Bob Jones University because of its racially discriminatory policies. ”
Bob Jones University, a private, non-denominational Protestant university located in Greenville, South Carolina, had policies that refused black students enrollment until 1971,[25] admitted only married blacks from 1971 to 1975,[25] and prohibited interracial dating and marriage between 1975 and 2000.[25] In the 1974 Bob Jones University v. Simon case, the US Supreme Court further enforced the Green decision and ruled that the IRS could penalize the University for enforcing segregation policies. The following year, the IRS sought to penalize Bob Jones University for refusing to allow interracial dating.[25] During this time, Weyrich organized a campaign to defend the University and alleged that various social issues that were deemed immoral by various religious conservatives justified the need to end federal intervention in religious schools.[25] As Balmer recalled:[25]
“ During the following break in the conference proceedings, I cornered Weyrich to make sure I had heard him correctly. He was adamant that, yes, the 1975 action by the IRS against Bob Jones University was responsible for the genesis of the Religious Right in the late 1970s. What about abortion? After mobilizing to defend Bob Jones University and its racially discriminatory policies, Weyrich said, these evangelical leaders held a conference call to discuss strategy. He recalled that someone suggested that they had the makings of a broader political movement—something that Weyrich had been pushing for all along—and asked what other issues they might address. Several callers made suggestions, and then, according to Weyrich, a voice on the end of one of the lines said, "How about abortion?" And that is how abortion was cobbled into the political agenda of the Religious Right. ”
Grassroots activism[edit]
Much of the Christian right's power within the American political system is attributed to their extraordinary turnout rate at the polls. The voters that coexist in the Christian right are also highly motivated and driven to get out a viewpoint on issues they care about. As well as high voter turnout, they can be counted on to attend political events, knock on doors and distribute literature. Members of the Christian right are willing to do the electoral work needed to see their candidate elected. Because of their high level of devotion, the Christian right does not need to monetarily compensate these people for their work.[8][26]
Political leaders and institutions[edit]
Led by Robert Grant advocacy group Christian Voice, Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority, Ed McAteer's Religious Roundtable Council, James Dobson's Focus on the Family, Paul Weyrich's Free Congress Foundation[27] and Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network, the new Religious Right combined conservative politics with evangelical and fundamentalist teachings.[16] The birth of the New Christian right, however, is usually traced to a 1979 meeting where televangelist Jerry Falwell was urged to create a "Moral Majority" organization.[17][28] In 1979, Weyrich was in a discussion with Falwell when he remarked that there was a "moral majority" of Americans ready to be called to political action.[27] Weyrich later recalled in a 2007 interview with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that after he mentioned the term "moral majority," Falwell "turned to his people and said, 'That's the name of our organization.' "[27]
Weyrich would then engineer a strong union between the Republican Party and many culturally conservative Christians.[27] Soon, Moral Majority became a general term for the conservative political activism of evangelists and fundamentalists such as Pat Robertson, James Robinson, and Jerry Falwell.[24] Howard Schweber, Professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, writes that "in the past two decades", "Catholic politicians have emerged as leading figures in the religious conservative movement."[3]
Institutions in the United States[edit]
 Wikinews has related news: Vanity Fair contributing editor Craig Unger on the rise of the Christian right
National organizations[edit]
See also: Moral Majority, Christian Voice (USA), Christian Coalition of America, Eagle Forum and The Family (Christian political organization)
One early attempt to bring the Christian right into American politics began in 1974 when Dr. Robert Grant, an early movement leader, founded American Christian Cause to advocate Christian ideological teachings in Southern California. Concerned that Christians overwhelmingly voted for President Jimmy Carter in 1976, Grant expanded his movement and founded Christian Voice to rally Christian voters behind socially conservative candidates.
In the late 1980s Pat Robertson founded the Christian Coalition of America, building from his 1988 presidential run, with Republican activist Ralph Reed, who became the spokesman for the Coalition. In 1992, the national Christian Coalition, Inc., headquartered in Virginia Beach, Virginia, began producing voter guides, which it distributed to conservative Christian churches. Under the leadership of Reed and Robertson, the Coalition quickly became the most prominent voice in the conservative Christian movement, its influence culminating with an effort to support the election of a conservative Christian to the presidency in 1996. In addition, they have talked encouraged the convergence of conservative Christian ideology with political issues, such as healthcare, the economy, education and crime.[29]



 Focus on the Family's Visitor's Welcome Center in Colorado Springs, Colorado.
Political activists lobbied within the Republican party locally and nationally to influence party platforms and nominations.[30] More recently Dr. James Dobson's group Focus on the Family, based in Colorado Springs, and the Family Research Council in Washington D.C. have gained enormous respect from Republican lawmakers. While strongly advocating for these ideological matters, Dobson himself is more wary of the political spectrum and much of the resources of his group are devoted to other aims such as media.[31] However, as a private citizen, Dobson has stated his opinion on presidential elections; on February 5, 2008, Dobson issued a statement regarding the 2008 presidential election and his strong disappointment with the Republican party's candidates.[32]
In an essay written in 1996, Ralph Reed argued against the moral absolutist tone of Christian right leaders, arguing for the Republican Party Platform to stress the moral dimension of abortion rather than placing emphasis on overturning Roe v. Wade. Reed believes that pragmatism is the best way to advocate for the Christian right.[33]
Partisan activity of churches[edit]
Overtly partisan actions by churches could threaten their 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status due to the Johnson Amendment of the Internal Revenue Code.[34] In one notable example, the former pastor of the East Waynesville Baptist Church in Waynesville, North Carolina "told the congregation that anyone who planned to vote for Democratic Sen. John Kerry should either leave the church or repent".[35] The church later expelled nine members who had voted for Kerry and refused to repent, which led to criticism on the national level. The pastor resigned and the ousted church members were allowed to return.[36]
The Alliance Defense Fund started the Pulpit Freedom Initiative[37] in 2008. ADF states that "[t]he goal of Pulpit Freedom Sunday is simple: have the Johnson Amendment declared unconstitutional – and once and for all remove the ability of the IRS to censor what a pastor says from the pulpit."[38]
Electoral activity[edit]
See also: Family Research Council
Christian right organizations sometimes conduct polls to determine which presidential candidates will receive the support of Christian right constituents. One such poll is taken at the Family Research Council's Values Voter Summit.[39][40] George W. Bush's electoral success owed much to his overwhelming support from white evangelical voters, who comprise 23% of the vote. In 2000 he received 68% of the white evangelical vote; in 2004 that percentage rose to 78%.[41]
Education[edit]
The Home School Legal Defense Association was co-founded in 1983 by Michael Farris, who would later establish Patrick Henry College, and Michael Smith. This organization attempts to challenge laws that serve as obstacles to allowing parents to home-school their children and to organize the disparate group of homeschooling families into a cohesive bloc. The number of homeschooling families has increased in the last twenty years, and around 80 percent of these families identify themselves as evangelicals.[42]
The main universities associated with the Christian right are:
Bob Jones University — Protestant Fundamentalist university, founded in 1927.[43]
Media[edit]
See also: The 700 Club and Christian Broadcasting Network
The media has played a major role in the rise of the Christian right since the 1920s and has continued to be a powerful force for political Christianity today. The role of the media for the Religious right has been influential in its ability to connect Christian audiences to the larger American culture while at the same time bringing and keeping religion into play as both a political and a cultural force.[44] The political agenda of the Christian right has been disseminated to the public through a variety of media outlets including radio broadcasting, television, and literature.
Religious broadcasting began in the 1920s through the radio.[44] Between the 1950s and 1980s, TV became a powerful way for the Christian right to influence the public through shows such as Pat Robertson's The 700 Club and The Family Channel. The Internet has also helped the Christian right reach a much larger audience. Organization's websites play a strong role in popularising the Christian right's stances on cultural and political issues, and informed interested viewers on how to get involved. The Christian Coalition, for example, has used the Internet to inform the public, as well as to sell merchandise and gather members.[45]
Views[edit]
Education[edit]
The Christian right has strong opinions on how American children should be educated, most notably emphasising their support for Christian activities in public schools.
The Christian right strongly advocates for a system of educational choice, using a system of school vouchers, instead of public education. Vouchers would be government funded and could be redeemed for "a specified maximum sum per child per years if spent on approved educational services".[46] This method would allow parents to determine which school their child attends while relieving the economic burden associated with private schools. The concept is popular among constituents of church-related schools, including those affiliated with Roman Catholicism.
Evolution[edit]
See also: Creation and evolution in public education
The Christian right in the United States promotes the teaching of creationism and intelligent design as opposed to biological evolution.[47][48] The Christian right has not supported the teaching of evolution in the past, but it does not have the ability to stop it being taught in public schools as was done during the Scopes Trial in Dayton, Tennessee, in which a science teacher went on trial for teaching about the subject of evolution in a public school.[49]
The Discovery Institute, through their Intelligent design initiative called the Center for Science and Culture, has endorsed the teach the controversy approach. Such an approach would ensure that both the strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary theory were discussed in the curriculum.[50] This tactic was criticized by Judge John E. Jones III in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, describing it as "at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard."[51]
The overwhelming majority of scientific research, both in the United States and elsewhere, has concluded that the theory of evolution, using the technical definition of the word theory, is the only explanation of the development of life, and an overwhelming majority of biologists strongly support its presentation in public school science classes.[52] Outside the United States, the Christian right have generally come to accept the theory of evolution.[53][54][55][56][57]
Sexual education[edit]
On the issue of sexual education in public schools, a spectrum of views exist within the Christian right. Some advocate removing sexual education from public schools, others support teaching abstinence until marriage, and still others advocate encouraging modesty[clarification needed] and chastity[clarification needed].
The Christian right has been successful in promoting abstinence-only curricula. 30 percent of America's sexual-education programs are abstinence based.[58] These programs promote abstinence until marriage as the only way to prevent pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases and the emotional issues that could arise from sexual activity.[59] Numerous scientific, peer-reviewed studies show that such programs do not limit teen pregnancy over the long run.[60][61][62]
Homeschooling[edit]
The Christian right sees homeschooling and private schooling as a valid alternative to public education for parents who object to the content being taught at school. In recent years, the percentage of children being homeschooled has risen from 1.7% of the student population in 1999 to 2.2% in 2003.[63] Much of this increase has been attributed to the desire to incorporate Christian teachings into the curriculum.[64] In 2003, 72% of parents who homeschooled their children cited the ability to provide religious or moral instruction as the reason for removing their children from public schools.[65]
Politics[edit]
See also: Separation of church and state, Separation of church and state in the United States, Establishment Clause, Dominionism, Christian Reconstructionism and Theonomy
As a right-wing political movement, the Christian right is strongly opposed to left-wing ideologies such as socialism and the welfare state. Soviet-style Communism is sometimes seen as a threat to the Western Christian tradition.[66]
Role of government[edit]
The Christian Right supports small government, economic liberalism and fiscal conservatism. The Christian right generally believes that the government should not interfere with the natural operations of the marketplace or the workplace.[67] It promotes conservative interpretations of the Bible as the basis for moral values, and enforcing such values by legislation.
Separation of Church and State[edit]
The Christian right believes that separation of church and state is not explicit in the American Constitution, believing instead that such separation is a creation of what it claims are activist judges in the judicial system.[68][69][70] In the United States, the Christian right often supports their claims by asserting that the country was "founded by Christians as a Christian Nation."[71][72] Members of the Christian right take the position that the Establishment Clause bars the federal government from establishing or sponsoring a state church (e.g., the Church of England), but does not prevent the government from acknowledging religion. The Christian right points out that the term "separation of church and state" is derived from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson, not from the Constitution itself.[73][74][75] Furthermore, the Alliance Defense Fund takes the view that the concept of "separation of church and state" has been utilized by the American Civil Liberties Union and its allies to inhibit public acknowledgment of Christianity and restrict the religious freedoms of Christians.[76]
Thus, Christian right leaders have argued that the Establishment Clause does not prohibit the display of religion in the public sphere. Leaders therefore believe that public institutions should be allowed to display the Ten Commandments. This interpretation has been repeatedly rejected by the courts, which have found that such displays violate the Establishment Clause.[dubious – discuss][citation needed] Public officials though are prohibited from using their authority in which the primary effect is "advancing or prohibiting religion", according to the Lemon Supreme Court test, and there cannot be an "excessive entanglement with religion" and the government.[77] Some, such as Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association, argue that the First Amendment, which specifically restricts Congress, applies only to the Congress and not the states. This position rejects the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.[78]
Generally, the Christian right supports the presence of religious institutions within government and the public sphere, and advocates for fewer restrictions on government funding for religious charities and schools.
Economics[edit]
Early American fundamentalists, such as John R. Rice[79][80] often favoured laissez-faire economics and were outspoken critics of the New Deal and later the Great Society.[79] The contemporary Christian right supports economic conservative policies such as tax cuts and social conservative policies such as child tax credits.[81]
The Middle East[edit]
The Religious Right has given very strong support to the state of Israel in recent decades, encouraging support for Israel in the United States government.[82] Some have linked Israel to Biblical prophesies; for example, Ed McAteer, founder of the Moral Majority, said "I believe that we are seeing prophecy unfold so rapidly and dramatically and wonderfully and, without exaggerating, makes me breathless."[83]
Abortion and contraception[edit]
See also: Bioethics and Family values



 This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (July 2011)
The Christian right opposes abortion, believing that life begins at conception and that abortion is murder. Therefore, those in the movement have worked toward the overturning of Roe v. Wade, and have also supported incremental steps to make abortion less available. Such efforts include bans on late-term abortion (including intact dilation and extraction),[84] prohibitions against Medicaid funding and other public funding for elective abortions, removal of taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood and other organizations that provide abortion services, legislation requiring parental consent or notification for abortions performed on minors,[85] legal protections for unborn victims of violence, legal protections for infants born alive following failed abortions, and bans on abortifacient medications.
The Christian right contends that morning-after pills such as Plan B and Ella are possible abortifacients, able to interfere with a fertilized egg's implantation in the uterine wall.[86] The labeling mandated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for Plan B and Ella state that they may interfere with implantation, but according to a June 2012, New York Times article, many scientists believe that they work only by interfering with ovulation and are arguing to have the implantation language removed from product labels. The Christian right maintains that the chemical properties of morning-after pills make them abortifacients and that the politics of abortion is influencing scientific judgments. Jonathan Imbody of the Christian Medical Association says he questions “whether ideological considerations are driving these decisions."[86]
Biotechnology[edit]
Due to the Christian right's views regarding ethics and to an extent due to negative views of eugenics common to most ideologies in North America, it has worked for the regulation and restriction of certain applications of biotechnology. In particular, the Christian right opposes therapeutic and reproductive human cloning, championing a 2005 United Nations ban on the practice,[87] and human embryonic stem cell research, which involves the extraction of one or more cells from a human embryo.[9] The Christian right supports research with adult stem cells, amniotic stem cells, and induced pluripotent stem cells which don't utilise cells from human embryos, as they view the harvesting of biological material from an embryo lacking the ability to give permission as an assault on a living being.
The Christian right also opposes euthanasia, and, in one highly publicized case, took an active role in seeking governmental intervention to prevent Terri Schiavo from being deprived of nutrition and hydration.
Sex and sexuality[edit]
The modern roots of the Christian right's views on sexual matters were evident in the 1950s, a period in which many Christian conservatives in the United States viewed sexual promiscuity as not only excessive, but in fact as a threat to their ideal vision of the country.[10]:30 Beginning in the 1970s, conservative Christian protests against promiscuity began to surface, largely as a reaction to the "permissive sixties" and an emerging prominence of sexual rights arising from Roe v Wade and the gay rights movement. The Christian right proceeded to make sexuality issues a priority political cause.[10]:28
The Christian right champions itself as the "self-appointed conscience of American society". During the 1980s, the movement was largely dismissed by political pundits and mainstream religious leaders as "a collection of buffoonish has-beens". Later, it re-emerged, better organized and more focused, taking firm positions against abortion, pornography, sexual deviency, and feminism.[12][88]:4
Influential Christian right organizations at the forefront of the anti-gay rights movement in the United States include Focus on the Family, Family Research Council and the Family Research Institute.[10]:15–16 An important stratagem in Christian right anti-gay politics is in its rejection of "the edicts of a Big Brother" state, allowing it to profit from "a general feeling of discontent and demoralization with government". As a result, the Christian right has endorsed smaller government, restricting its ability to arbitrate in disputes regarding values and traditions. In this context, gay rights laws have come to symbolize the government's allegedly unconstitutional "[interference] with individual freedom".[10]:170–171
The central tenets of Focus on the Family and similar organizations, such as the Family Research Council, emphasise issues such as abortion and the necessity of gender roles. A number of organizations, including the New Christian Right, "have in various ways rejected liberal America in favor of the regulation of pornography, anti-abortion legislation, the criminalization of homosexuality, and the virtues of faithfulness and loyalty in sexual partnerships", according to sociologist Bryan Turner.[11]
A large number of the Christian right view same-sex marriage as a central issue in the culture wars, more so than other gay rights issues and even more significantly than abortion.[88]:57[dubious – discuss] The legalization of same-sex marriage in 2004 changed the Christian right, causing it to put its opposition to these marriages above most other issues. It also created previously unknown interracial and ecumenical coalitions, and stimulated new electoral activity in pastors and congregations.[88]:58
Criticism[edit]
Criticisms of the Christian right come from many people who call for a caring and connected society focused on social responsibility and social justice. Theologian Michael Lerner has summarized:

The unholy alliance of the Political Right and the Religious Right threatens to destroy the America we love. It also threatens to generate a revulsion against God and religion by identifying them with militarism, ecological irresponsibility, fundamentalist antagonism to science and rational thought, and insensitivity to the needs of the poor and the powerless.[89]
Interpretation of Christianity[edit]
Further information: Christian left
One argument questioning the legitimacy of the Christian right is that Jesus Christ may be considered a leftist on the modern political spectrum. Jesus' concern with the poor and feeding the hungry, among other things, are core attributes of modern-day Socialism and opposition to the social disparity viewed by those on the right-wing as inevitable or favourable.[90][91][92]
Some criticize what they see as a politicization of Christianity because they say Jesus transcends our political concepts.[93][94][95]
Mikhail Gorbachev referred to Jesus as "the first Socialist".[96][97]
Race and diversity[edit]
The conclusions of a review of 112 studies on Christian faith and ethnic prejudice were summarized by a study in 1980 as being that "white Protestants associated with groups possessing fundamentalist belief systems are generally more prejudiced than members of non-fundamentalist groups, with unchurched whites exhibiting least prejudice."[98] The original review found that its conclusions held "regardless of when the studies were conducted, from whom the data came, the region where the data were collected, or the type of prejudice studied."[99] More recently in 2003, eight studies have found a positive correlation between fundamentalism and prejudice, using different measures of fundamentalism.[100]
A number of prominent members of the Christian right, including Jerry Falwell and Rousas John Rushdoony, have in the past supported segregation, with Falwell arguing in a 1958 sermon that integration will lead to the destruction of the white race.[101][102]
In Thy Kingdom Come, Randall Balmer recounts comments that Paul M. Weyrich, whom he describes as "one of the architects of the Religious Right in the late 1970s", made at a conference, sponsored by a Religious Right organization, that they both attended in Washington in 1990:[103]

In the course of one of the sessions, Weyrich tried to make a point to his Religious Right brethren (no women attended the conference, as I recall). Let's remember, he said animatedly, that the Religious Right did not come together in response to the Roe decision. No, Weyrich insisted, what got us going as a political movement was the attempt on the part of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to rescind the tax-exempt status of Bob Jones University because of its racially discriminatory policies.
—Paul M. Weyrich
Bob Jones University had policies that refused black students enrollment until 1971, and admitted only married blacks from 1971 to 1975. The university continued to forbid interracial dating until 2000.[104] In an interview with The Politico, University of Virginia theologian Charles Marsh, author of Wayward Christian Soldiers and the son of a Southern Baptist minister, stated:[105]

As someone who grew up in Mississippi and Alabama during the civil rights movement, … my reading is that the conservative Christian movement never was able to distinguish itself from the segregationist movement, and that is one of the reasons I find so much of the rhetoric familiar — and unsettling.
By the end of the civil rights movement, the way was set for this marriage of the Republican Party and conservative Christians. … At the Neshoba County Fair in Mississippi in 1980, (Ronald) Reagan's statement "I am for states' rights" was a remarkable moment in the conservative South. The Southern way of life was affirmed and then deftly grafted into national conservative politics.
LGBT rights[edit]
Whilst the Christian right in the United States is making a tough stand against the progression of LGBT rights, other Christians have taken a more lighthearted approach towards the matter, arguing that the biblical texts only oppose specific types of divergent sexual behaviour, such as paederasty (i.e. the sodomising of young boys by older men).[106][107][108][109]
Use of Dominionism Labeling[edit]
Main article: Dominionism
Some social scientists have used the word "dominionism" to refer to adherence to Dominion Theology[110][111][112] as well as to the influence in the broader Christian Right of ideas inspired by Dominion Theology.[110] Although such influence (particularly of Reconstructionism) has been described by many authors,[17][113] full adherents to Reconstructionism are few and marginalized among conservative Christians.[17][114][115] In the early 1990s, sociologist Sara Diamond[28][116] defined dominionism in her Ph.D. dissertation as a movement that, while including Dominion Theology and Reconstructionism as subsets, is much broader in scope, extending to much of the Christian Right.[117] She was followed by journalists including Frederick Clarkson[118][119] and Chris Hedges[120][121][122] and others who have stressed the influence of Dominionist ideas on the Christian right.[123][124][125][126][127][128][129][130][131][132]
The terms "dominionist" and "dominionism" are rarely used for self-description, and their usage has been attacked from several quarters. Journalist Anthony Williams charged that its purpose is "to smear the Republican Party as the party of domestic Theocracy, facts be damned."[133] Stanley Kurtz labeled it "conspiratorial nonsense," "political paranoia," and "guilt by association",[134] and decried Hedges' "vague characterizations" that allow him to "paint a highly questionable picture of a virtually faceless and nameless 'Dominionist' Christian mass."[135] Kurtz also complained about a perceived link between average Christian evangelicals and extremism such as Christian Reconstructionism:

The notion that conservative Christians want to reinstitute slavery and rule by genocide is not just crazy, it's downright dangerous. The most disturbing part of the Harper's cover story (the one by Chris Hedges) was the attempt to link Christian conservatives with Hitler and fascism. Once we acknowledge the similarity between conservative Christians and fascists, Hedges appears to suggest, we can confront Christian evil by setting aside 'the old polite rules of democracy.' So wild conspiracy theories and visions of genocide are really excuses for the Left to disregard the rules of democracy and defeat conservative Christians — by any means necessary.[134]
Lisa Miller of Newsweek said that many warnings about "dominionism" are "paranoid" and that "the word creates a siege mentality in which 'we' need to guard against 'them.'"[136] Ross Douthat of the New York Times noted that "many of the people that writers like Diamond and others describe as 'dominionists' would disavow the label, many definitions of dominionism conflate several very different Christian political theologies, and there’s a lively debate about whether the term is even useful at all."[137] According to Joe Carter of First Things, "the term was coined in the 1980s by Diamond and is never used outside liberal blogs and websites. No reputable scholars use the term for it is a meaningless neologism that Diamond concocted for her dissertation,"[138] while Jeremy Pierce of First Things coined the word "dominionismist" to describe those who promote the idea that there is a dominionist conspiracy.[139]
Other criticism has focused on the proper use of the term. Berlet wrote that "some critics of the Christian Right have stretched the term dominionism past its breaking point,"[140] and argued that, rather than labeling conservatives as extremists, it would be better to "talk to these people" and "engage them."[141] Sara Diamond wrote that "[l]iberals' writing about the Christian Right's take-over plans has generally taken the form of conspiracy theory", and argued that instead one should "analyze the subtle ways" that ideas like Dominionism "take hold within movements and why."[142]
Dan Olinger, a professor at the fundamentalist Bob Jones University in Greenville said, “We want to be good citizens and participants, but we’re not really interested in using the iron fist of the law to compel people to everything Christians should do.”[143] Bob Marcaurelle, interim pastor at Mountain Springs Baptist Church in Piedmont, said the Middle Ages were proof enough that Christian ruling groups are almost always corrupted by power. “When Christianity becomes the government, the question is whose Christianity?” Marcaurelle asked.[144]
Environment[edit]
[icon] This section requires expansion. (February 2015)
According to some social science research, Christians and members of the Christian right are typically less concerned about issues of environmental responsibility than the general public.[145][146]
Movements outside the United States[edit]
While the Christian Right is a strong movement in the United States, it has a presence as well in Canada. There is nothing quite like it in Europe.[147] Alan Curtis suggests that the Christian right "is a phenomenon that is very hard for Europeans to understand."[148]
Canada[edit]
Main article: Conservatism in Canada
See also: Abortion in Canada and Same-sex marriage in Canada
Religion has been a key factor in Canadian politics since well before Canadian Confederation in 1867, when the Conservatives were the party of traditionalist Catholics and Anglicans and the Liberals were the party of Protestant dissenters and anti-clerical Catholics. This pattern largely remained until the mid-twentieth century when a new division emerged between the Christian left (represented by the Social Gospel philosophy and ecumenicism) and the Christian right (represented by fundamentalism and biblical literalism). The Christian left (along with the secular and anti-religious left) became supporters of the New Democratic Party while the right moved to the Social Credit Party, especially in Western Canada, and to a lesser extent the Progressive Conservatives.
The Social Credit Party, founded in 1935 represented a major change in Canadian religious politics. Until that time, fundamentalists had shunned politics as "worldly", and a distraction from the proper practice of religion. However, the new party was founded by fundamentalist radio preacher and Bible school teacher William Aberhart or "Bible Bill". Aberhart mixed his own interpretation of scripture and prophecy with the monetary reform theories of social credit to create a movement that swept across Alberta, winning the provincial election of 1935 in a landslide. Aberhart and his disciple Ernest Manning then governed the province for the next forty years, several times trying to expand into the rest of Canada. In 1987 Manning's son, Preston Manning, founded the new Reform Party of Canada, which soon became the main party of the religious right. It won majorities of the seats in Western Canada in repeated elections, but was unable to break through in Eastern Canada, though it became the official opposition from 1997 to 2003 (Reform was renamed the Canadian Alliance in 2000). In 2003 the Canadian Alliance and the Progressive Conservatives merged to create the Conservative Party of Canada, led by Stephen Harper, a member of the Christian and Missionary Alliance, who went on to become prime minister in 2006.
Canada has had a Charter of Rights and Freedoms since the Canadian Constitution was patriated in 1982. As a result, there have been major changes in the law's application to issues that bear on individual and minority group rights. Abortions were completely decriminalized after two R. v. Morgentaler cases (in 1988 and in 1993). A series of provincial superior court decisions allowing same-sex marriage led the federal government to introduce legislation that introduced same sex marriage in all of Canada. The current prime minister, Stephen Harper and his Conservative Party of Canada, stated before taking office that he would hold a free vote on the issue,[149] but declared the issue closed after a vote in the Canadian House of Commons in 2006.[150]
The Netherlands[edit]
In the Netherlands Calvinist Protestants have long had their own political parties, now called the Reformed Political Party (SGP) on the right, and the ChristianUnion (CU) in the center. For generations they operated their own newspapers and broadcasting association. The SGP has about 28,000 members, and three members of parliament, of the 150. It has always been in opposition to the government.[151] The SGP has helped the Dutch government to get laws through the Second Chamber 2010-2012. In exchange that government did not increase the number of Sundays on which shopping is allowed.
Other countries[edit]
In Northern Ireland, the Reverend Ian Paisley led a Protestant fundamentalist party, the Democratic Unionist Party, which had a considerable influence on the province's culture.[152][153] Karen Armstrong has mentioned English evangelical leader Colin Urquhart as advocating positions similar to the Christian Right.[154] Some of the members of the Conservative Party also support some of the values of the Christian right.
In Australia, fundamentalist Christianity is the base for Fred Nile and his Christian Democratic Party as well as the Family First Party. Nile in 1967-68 was Assistant Director of the Billy Graham Crusade in Sydney. Both parties promote social conservatism, opposing gay rights and abortion.[155] Some party members of the Liberal and National Party Coalition and the Australian Labor Party also support some of the values of the Christian right on abortion and gay rights.
In the Philippines, due to Spanish colonization, and the introduction of the Catholic Church, religious conservatism has a strong influence on national policies.[156]
The Swiss Federal Democratic Union is a small conservative Protestant party with about 1% of the vote.[157]
In Scandinavia, the Centre Party is a bible-oriented fundamentalist party; it has about 4% of the votes in the Faroe Islands. However, the Norwegian Christian People's Party, the Swedish Christian Democrats and Danish Christian Democrats are less religiously orthodox and are similar to mainstream European Christian Democracy.
The Christian right has a strong position in several Conservative parties worldwide, although many members of these parties would also, paradoxically, strongly oppose such views.
Associated minor political parties[edit]
Part of the Politics series
Party politics

Political spectrum

Far-left/Radical left ·
 Left-wing

Centre-left
Centre/Radical centre

Centre-right
Right-wing ·
 Far-right/Radical right


Party platform

Extremist ·
 Radical

Reformist ·
 Moderate

Syncretic
Conservative ·
 Reactionary

Fundamentalist


Party system

Non-partisan ·
 Single-party

Dominant-party ·
 Two-party ·
 Multi-party


Coalition

Hung parliament ·
 Confidence and supply ·
 Minority government ·
 Rainbow coalition ·
 Grand coalition ·
 Full coalition
 National Unity government
Majority government

Lists
Political parties by country
Political parties by UN geoscheme
Political ideologies

Politics portal
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Some minor political parties have formed as vehicles for Christian right activists:
Christian Democratic Party (Australia)
Christian Party of Austria (Austria)
Christian Electoral Community (Austria)
Christian Heritage Party (Canada)
Party of Bible-abiding Christians (Germany)
Reformed Political Party (Netherlands)
The Christians (Norway)
Christian Unity Party (Norway)
Federal Democratic Union (Switzerland)
Christian Party (United Kingdom)
Constitution Party (United States)[158]
See also[edit]

Portal icon Christianity portal
Portal icon Conservatism portal
American Center for Law & Justice
Bible Belt (Netherlands)
Bible Belt
Campaign Life Coalition
Chalcedon Foundation
Social conservatism
Traditional conservatism
Christian politics
Christian Zionism
Religious right (disambiguation)
Save Our Children
Theoconservatism
Contrast: Christian left, Secular left, Secular right
Notes[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Sociology: understanding a diverse society Margaret L. Andersen, Howard Francis Taylor , Cengage Learning, 2005 ISBN 978-0-534-61716-5, ISBN 978-0-534-61716-5
2.^ Jump up to: a b Deckman, Melissa Marie (2004). School Board Battles: The Christian Right in Local Politics. Georgetown University Press. p. 48. ISBN 9781589010017. Retrieved April 10, 2014. "More than half of all Christian right candidates attend evangelical Protestant churches, which are more theologically liberal. A relatively large number of Christian Right candidates (24 percent) are Catholics; however, when asked to describe themselves as either "progressive/liberal" or "traditional/conservative" Catholics, 88 percent of these Christian right candidates place themselves in the traditional category."
3.^ Jump up to: a b Schweber, Howard. "The Catholicization of the American Right". The Huffington Post. Retrieved February 24, 2012. "In the past two decades, the American religious Right has become increasingly Catholic. I mean that both literally and metaphorically. Literally, Catholic writers have emerged as intellectual leaders of the religious right in universities, the punditocracy, the press, and the courts, promoting an agenda that at its most theoretical involves a reclamation of the natural law tradition of Thomas Aquinas and at its most practical involves appeals to the kind of common-sense, "everybody knows," or "it just is" arguments that have characterized opposition to same-sex marriage ... Meanwhile, in the realm of actual politics, Catholic politicians have emerged as leading figures in the religious conservative movement."
4.^ Jump up to: a b Melissa Marie Deckman. School Board Battles: the Christian right in Local Politics. Georgetown University Press. "Indeed, such significant Christian Right leaders such as Pat Buchanan and Paul Weyrich are conservative Catholics."
5.Jump up ^ Smith, David Whitten; Burr, Elizabeth Geraldine (2007). Understanding World Religions: A Road Map for Justice and Peace. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 106.
6.^ Jump up to: a b c Encyclopedia of Religion and Society
7.^ Jump up to: a b Williams, Daniel K. (2010). God's Own Party: The Making of the Christian Right. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 1, 2. ISBN 9780195340846.
8.^ Jump up to: a b John C. Green and Mark Silk, "Why Moral Values Did Count," Religion in the News, Spring 2005, http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/csrpl/RINVol8No1/WhyMoral%20ValuesDidCount.htm
9.^ Jump up to: a b "U-M: 6 new stem cell lines available for research". Associated Press. June 14, 2012.
10.^ Jump up to: a b c d e Herman, Didi (1997). The Antigay Agenda: Orthodox Vision and the Christian Right. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-32764-7.  – via Questia (subscription required)
11.^ Jump up to: a b Petersen, David L. (2005). "Genesis and Family Values". Journal of Biblical Literature 124 (1).  – via Questia (subscription required)
12.^ Jump up to: a b Kaplan, George R. (May 1994). "Shotgun Wedding: Notes on Public Education's Encounter with the New Christian Right". Phi Delta Kappan 75 (9).  – via Questia (subscription required)
13.Jump up ^ Grant Wacker
14.Jump up ^ Sarah Pulliam: Phrase 'Religious Right' Misused, Conservatives Say Christianity Today (Web-only), February 12, 2009.
15.^ Jump up to: a b c Republican Party Platform of 1980
16.^ Jump up to: a b Jerome Himmelstein, p. 97; Spiritual Warfare: The Politics of the Religious Right, p.49–50, Sara Diamond, South End Press, Boston, MA
17.^ Jump up to: a b c d Martin, William (1996). With God on Our Side: The Rise of the Religious Right in America. New York: Broadway Books. ISBN 0-553-06745-1.
18.Jump up ^ Williams 2010, p. 3
19.Jump up ^ Shaun Casey, The making of a Catholic president: Kennedy vs. Nixon 1960 (2009) pp. 3-11, 107-18
20.Jump up ^ Williams 2010, p. 5
21.Jump up ^ Joel D. Aberbach; Gillian Peele. Crisis of Conservatism?: The Republican Party, the Conservative Movement, and American Politics After Bush. Oxford University Press.
22.Jump up ^ Kristin E. Heyer; Mark J. Rozell; Michael A. Genovese. Catholics and Politics: the Dynamic Tension between Faith and Power. Georgetown University Press. "To summarize, in the Republican Party, many Catholic activists held conservative positions on key issues emphasized by Christian Right leaders, and they said that they supported the political activities of some Christian Right candidates."
23.Jump up ^ Perlstein, Rick (2008). Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America. Simon and Schuster. p. 164. ISBN 0743243021.
24.^ Jump up to: a b Reinhard, David (1983). The Republican Right since 1945. Lexington, KY: Univ Press of Kentucky. p. 245. ISBN 978-0813114842.
25.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j Evangelical: Religious Right Has Distorted the Faith, Linda Wertheimer, National Public Radio
26.Jump up ^ Geoffrey C. Layman, and John C. Green. 2006. “Wars and Rumors of Wars: The Contexts of Cultural Conflict in American Political Behavior.” British Journal of Political Science, Volume 36, Issue 1, January 2006, pp 61–89.
27.^ Jump up to: a b c d Elaine Woo (December 19, 2008). "Paul Weyrich, religious conservative and ex-president of Heritage Foundation, dies at 66". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved January 29, 2015.
28.^ Jump up to: a b Sara, Diamond (1995). Roads to Dominion. New York: Guilford Press. ISBN 0-89862-864-4.
29.Jump up ^ Micklethwait and Wooldridge, The Right Nation, 2005, 111
30.Jump up ^ Green, Rozell, and Wilcox, The Christian right in American Politics, 2003
31.Jump up ^ Micklethwait and Wooldridge, The Right Nation, 2005, 187
32.Jump up ^ "Dr. Dobson: ' I Cannot, and Will Not, Vote for McCain'". CitizenLink. Retrieved December 26, 2011.
33.Jump up ^ The Evolving Politics of the Christian Right, Matthew C. Moen, PS: Political Science and Politics, Vol. 29, No. 3 (Sep. 1996), pp. 461–464
34.Jump up ^ "Charities, Churches and Politics". Internal Revenue Service. Retrieved July 5, 2011.
35.Jump up ^ Democrats voted out of church because of their politics, members say, USA Today
36.Jump up ^ Political Split Leaves a Church Sadder and Grayer, New York Times, May 15, 2005
37.Jump up ^ Berlinerblau, Jacques (October 5, 2011). "Where does church end and state begin? - Georgetown/On Faith". The Washington Post. Retrieved December 26, 2011.
38.Jump up ^ "Speak Up : Pulpit Freedom Sunday - History of the Pulpit Initiative". Speakupmovement.org. Retrieved December 26, 2011.
39.Jump up ^ FRC Action: Tuesday, March 25, 2008[dead link]
40.Jump up ^ Michelle Vu, "Presidential Hopefuls Highlight 'Values' to Christian Conservatives," "The Christian Post," October 20, 2007 http://www.christianpost.com/article/20071020/29775_Presidential_Hopefuls_Highlight_'Values'_to_Christian_Conservatives.htm
41.Jump up ^ Religion and the Presidential Vote, Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, December 6, 2004
42.Jump up ^ Rosin, God's Harvard, 2007, 61–62
43.Jump up ^ Aaron Haberman Into the Wilderness: Ronald Reagan, Bob Jones University, and the Political Education of the Christian Right
44.^ Jump up to: a b Diamond, S. (2000) Not by Politics Alone: The Enduring Influence of the Christian right. New York: Guildford Press.
45.Jump up ^ "The Christian Coalition of America: America's Leading Grassroots Organization Defending Our Godly Heritage." The Christian Coalition of America. 2006. <http://www.cc.org/>.
46.Jump up ^ Spring, Joel. Political Agendas for Education: From the Religious Right to the Green Party. Second Edition. (Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2002)
47.Jump up ^ Pat Robertson Warns Pa. Town of Disaster, CBSNews.com
48.Jump up ^ Pa. Voters Rejected God, CBSNews.com
49.Jump up ^ "Court decisions regarding Evolution/Creationism". Don-lindsay-archive.org. Retrieved December 26, 2011.
50.Jump up ^ Slack, Gordy. The Battle Over the Meaning of Everything. (San Francisco: John Wiley and Sons, 2007), 67.
51.Jump up ^ Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District: Memorandum Opinion by Judge John E. Jones III, page 89
52.Jump up ^ "Project Steve". Ncse.com. Retrieved December 26, 2011.
53.Jump up ^ [1]
54.Jump up ^ [2]
55.Jump up ^ [3]
56.Jump up ^ [4]
57.Jump up ^ [5]
58.Jump up ^ Harris, Sam. Letter to a Christian Nation 2006
59.Jump up ^ A brief history of Abstinence-only until Marriage Funding, Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States[dead link]
60.Jump up ^ Sex Ed Can Help Prevent Teen Pregnancy. Washingtonpost.com. Retrieved on August 24, 2013.
61.Jump up ^ UGA study: Higher pregnancy and birth rates in states with abstinence-only sex ed programs in schools | Get Schooled. Blogs.ajc.com (November 30, 2011). Retrieved on 2013-08-24.
62.Jump up ^ Abstinence-only education does not lead to abstinent behavior, researchers find. Sciencedaily.com (November 29, 2011). Retrieved on 2013-08-24.
63.Jump up ^ "Homeschooling in the United States: 2003 - Executive Summary". Nces.ed.gov. Retrieved December 26, 2011.
64.Jump up ^ "Popularity of homeschooling rises nationwide, curriculum concerns, safety cited". Christianexaminer.com. Retrieved December 26, 2011.
65.Jump up ^ "Homeschooling in the United States: 2003 - Parents’ Reasons for Homeschooling". Nces.ed.gov. Retrieved December 26, 2011.
66.Jump up ^ Micklethwait and Wooldridge (2004). The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America. Penguin Books.
67.Jump up ^ "The Christian Right, The Twentieth Century, Divining America: Religion in American History, TeacherServe, National Humanities Center". Nationalhumanitiescenter.org. Retrieved December 26, 2011.
68.Jump up ^ Pat Robertson The First Amendment
69.Jump up ^ "Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists". Loc.gov. Retrieved December 26, 2011.
70.Jump up ^ ThinkExist.com Quotations. "James Madison quotes". Thinkexist.com. Retrieved December 26, 2011.
71.Jump up ^ House Resolution 888, United States House of Representatives
72.Jump up ^ A Nonbeliever. "America is not founded upon Christianity but the Enlightenment". Freethought.mbdojo.com. Retrieved December 26, 2011.
73.Jump up ^ Watkins, Shanea. "The Mythical "Wall of Separation": How a Misused Metaphor Changed Church–State Law, Policy, and Discourse". Heritage.org. Retrieved December 26, 2011.
74.Jump up ^ "Wall of Separation Between Church and State: Myth, Reality, Results". Family Research Council. Retrieved December 26, 2011.
75.Jump up ^ Charles E. Steele (January 18, 2009). "Separation of Church and State, Thomas Jefferson, and the First Amendment". Schoolprayerinamerica.info. Retrieved December 26, 2011.
76.Jump up ^ "Religious Freedom". Alliance Defense Fund. Retrieved December 26, 2011.
77.Jump up ^ "Lemon Test". Answers.com. Retrieved December 26, 2011.
78.Jump up ^ "The First Amendment means what it says - RIGHTLYCONCERNED.COM". Action.afa.net. February 19, 2010. Retrieved December 26, 2011.
79.^ Jump up to: a b "[Rice] melded politics and religion in a way that made it very clear what side of any political issue he believed God was on.God had been very clearly opposed to the New Deal "socialism" of Franklin Roosevelt, and God was equally opposed to the Great Society "socialism" of Lyndon Baines Johnson". Andrew Himes, The Sword of the Lord: The Roots of Fundamentalism in an American Family Chiara Press, 2011 ISBN 1453843752, (p.271).
80.Jump up ^ Nathan Andrew Finn, The Development of Baptist Fundamentalism in the South, 1940-1980 ProQuest, 2007 ISBN 0549371435 (p.204).
81.Jump up ^ Our Legislative Agenda, Christian Coalition of America
82.Jump up ^ Stephen Spector, Evangelicals and Israel: the story of American Christian Zionism (2008) pp 23-49
83.Jump up ^ Jan G. Linn, What's Wrong With The Christian Right (2004) p 27
84.Jump up ^ Partial Birth Abortion Act of 2003 108th United States Congress (1st session)
85.Jump up ^ Allen Wants Parents Notified - Daily Press. Articles.dailypress.com (April 9, 1994). Retrieved on 2013-08-24.
86.^ Jump up to: a b Belluck, Pam (June 6, 2012). "Abortion Qualms on Morning-After Pill May Be Unfounded". The New York Times.
87.Jump up ^ "U.N. Adopts Pro-Life Declaration Against Human Cloning". Newsmax. February 19, 2005.
88.^ Jump up to: a b c Green, Hohn (2006). Green, John C.; Rozell, Mark J.; Wilcox, Clyde, ed. THE VALUES CAMPAIGN? The Christian Right and the 2004 Elections. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. ISBN 978-1589011083.  – via Questia (subscription required)
89.Jump up ^ Lerner, Michael (2006). The Left Hand of God (book). Harper Collins. p. 1. ISBN 978-0-06084247-5.
90.Jump up ^ Johnson, Paul (2005). Auburn University website "Right-wing, rightist". A Political Glossary. Retrieved 23 October 2014.
91.Jump up ^ Bobbio, Norberto and Allan Cameron,Left and Right: The Significance of a Political Distinction. University of Chicago Press, 1997, p. 51, 62. ISBN 978-0-226-06246-4
92.Jump up ^ J. E. Goldthorpe. An Introduction to Sociology. Cambridge, England, UK; Oakleigh, Melbourne, Australia; New York, New York, USA p. 156. ISBN 0-521-24545-1.
93.Jump up ^ [6] Herman Cain calls Jesus conservative
94.Jump up ^ Stephen J. Nichols: Jesus Made in America: A Cultural History from the Puritans to "The Passion of the Christ" pp. 204-209. Westmont, IL, 2008.
95.Jump up ^ Shermer, Michael (July 21, 2010). "Was Jesus a Conservative or a Liberal? - Michael Shermer - Skeptic". True/Slant. Retrieved December 26, 2011.
96.Jump up ^ "Biography of Mikhail Gorbachev". National Cold War Exhibition. Trustees of the Royal Air Force Museum. Retrieved August 10, 2012.
97.Jump up ^ Marvin Olasky: The Tragedy of American Compassion passim. Washington D.C. 1992.
98.Jump up ^ Sex Prejudice among White Protestants: Like or Unlike Ethnic Prejudice?, Charles W. Peek, Sharon Brown Social Forces, Vol. 59, No. 1 (Sep. 1980), pp. 169–185
99.Jump up ^ Christian Faith and Ethnic Prejudice: A Review and Interpretation of Research, Richard L. Gorsuch, Daniel Aleshire, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Vol. 13, No. 3 (Sep. 1974), pp. 281–307
100.Jump up ^ Altemeyer and Hunsberger (1992); Wylie and Forest, (1992); Hunsberger, (1996); Jackson and Esses, (1997); Hunsberger, Owusu and Duck, (1999); Laythe et al., (2001); Altemeyer, (2003)), cited in The Psychology of Religion, Third Edition: An Empirical Approach (2003), Spilka et al., p466
101.Jump up ^ http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/01/09/justice_sunday/, Michelle Goldberg, Salon.com
102.Jump up ^ Avenging angel of the religious right, Max Blumenthal, Salon.com
103.Jump up ^ Evangelical: Religious Right Has Distorted the Faith, Linda Wertheimer, National Public Radio
104.Jump up ^ [Susannah Meadows, "Passing the Torch at Bob Jones U." Newsweek Web Exclusive [MSNBC link expired], January 29, 2005, hard copy at Fundamentalism File, Mack Library, BJU.
105.Jump up ^ Religion and politics don't mix, Robin T. Reid, The Politico
106.Jump up ^ Why TCPC Advocates Equal Rights for Gay and Lesbian People
107.Jump up ^ Equality for Gays and Lesbians
108.Jump up ^ Bible & Homosexuality Home Page. Pflagdetroit.org (1998-12-11). Retrieved on 2013-08-24.
109.Jump up ^ [7][dead link]
110.^ Jump up to: a b Barron, Bruce. 1992. Heaven on Earth? The Social & Political Agendas of Dominion Theology. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan. ISBN 0-310-53611-1.
111.Jump up ^ Davis, Derek H. and Hankins, Barry, 2003. New Religious Movements and Religious Liberty in America, Baylor University Press.
112.Jump up ^ Davidson, Carl; Harris, Jerry (2006). "Globalisation, theocracy and the new fascism: the US Right's rise to power". Race and Class 47 (3): 47–67. doi:10.1177/0306396806061086.
113.Jump up ^ Berlet, Chip and Matthew N. Lyons. 2000. Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort. New York: Guilford Press.
114.Jump up ^ Diamond, Sara, 1998. Not by Politics Alone: The Enduring Influence of the Christian Right, New York: Guilford Press, p.213.
115.Jump up ^ Ortiz, Chris 2007. "Gary North on D. James Kennedy", Chalcedon Blog, September 6, 2007.
116.Jump up ^ Diamond, Sara. 1989. Spiritual Warfare: The Politics of the Christian Right. Boston: South End Press.
117.Jump up ^ In her early work, Diamond sometimes used the term dominion theology to refer to this broader movement, rather than to the specific theological system of Reconstructionism.
118.Jump up ^ Clarkson, Frederick, 1994. Christian Reconstructionism: Theocratic Dominionism Gains Influence", The Public Eye 8, Nos. 1 & 2, March/June 1994.
119.Jump up ^ Clarkson, Frederick. 1997. Eternal Hostility: The Struggle Between Theocracy and Democracy. Monroe, Maine: Common Courage. ISBN 1-56751-088-4
120.Jump up ^ The Christian Right and the Rise of American Fascism By Chris Hedges, TheocracyWatch.
121.Jump up ^ Hedges, Chris (May 2005). "Feeling the hate with the National Religious Broadcasters". Harper's. Retrieved April 11, 2007.
122.Jump up ^ Hedges, Chris, American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America, Free Press, 2006.
123.Jump up ^ Goldberg, Michelle 2006. Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism. New York: W. W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-06094-2 (10). ISBN 978-0-393-06094-2 (13).
124.Jump up ^ Phillips, Kevin 2006. American Theocracy: The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21st century ISBN 0-670-03486-X
125.Jump up ^ McCarraher, Eugene 2006. "Empire Falls", Commonweal 133(9), May 5, 2006.
126.Jump up ^ Yurica, Katherine 2004. "The Despoiling of America" published February 11, 2004. Retrieved October 3, 2007. And also published in Toward a New Political Humanism, Edited by Barry F. Seidman and Neil J. Murphy, Prometheus Books, New York, 2004.
127.Jump up ^ Yurica, Katherine 2004. Blood Guilty Churches, January 19, 2005. Retrieved October 6, 2007.
128.Jump up ^ Yurica, Katherine 2005. Yurica Responds to Stanley Kurtz Attack, May 23, 2005. Retrieved October 6, 2007.
129.Jump up ^ Maddox, Marion 2005. God under Howard: The Rise of the Religious Right in Australian Politics, Allen & Unwin.
130.Jump up ^ Rudin, James 2006. The Baptizing of America: The Religious Right's Plans for the Rest of Us, New York: Thunder's Mouth Press.
131.Jump up ^ Harris, Sam 2007. "God's dupes", Los Angeles Times, March 15, 2007. Retrieved October 8, 2007.
132.Jump up ^ "The Rise of the Religious Right in the Republican Party", TheocracyWatch, Last updated: December 2005; URL accessed May 8, 2006.
133.Jump up ^ Anthony Williams (May 4, 2005). ""Dominionist" Fantasies". FrontPage Magazine. Retrieved May 4, 2007.
134.^ Jump up to: a b Stanley Kurtz (May 2, 2005). "Dominionist Domination: The Left runs with a wild theory". National Review Online. Retrieved October 6, 2007.
135.Jump up ^ Stanley Kurtz (April 28, 2005). "Scary Stuff". National Review Online. Retrieved October 6, 2007.
136.Jump up ^ Miller, Lisa, 2011. 'Dominionism' beliefs among conservative Christians overblown. Newsweek. Published August 18, 2011. Retrieved September 8, 2011.
137.Jump up ^ Douthat, Ross 2011. The New Yorker and Francis Schaeffer. New York Times. Published August 29, 2011. Retrieved September 11, 2011.
138.Jump up ^ Carter, Joe, 2011. A Journalism Lesson for the New Yorker. First Things. Published August 10, 2011. Retrieved August 19, 2011.
139.Jump up ^ Pierce, Jeremy, 2011. Dominionismists. First Things. Published August 14, 2011. Retrieved September 8, 2011.
140.Jump up ^ Berlet, Chip, 2005. The Christian Right, Dominionism, and Theocracy. Retrieved September 25, 2007.
141.Jump up ^ Ellis Henican, "A spiritual olive branch for the far-right faithful," Newsday, May 1, 2005. Reposted at YuricaReport.com. Retrieved September 23, 2006
142.Jump up ^ Diamond, Sara. 1995. "Dominion Theology." Z Magazine, February 1995
143.Jump up ^ "Pastors: Christian government not Jesus’ cause". Independentmail.com. February 10, 2007. Retrieved December 26, 2011.
144.Jump up ^ February 12, 2007, The State, Columbia, SC "Pastors don’t embrace movement"
145.Jump up ^ Sherkat, D. E., and C. G. Ellison. 2007. Structuring the religion-environment connection: identifying religious influences on environmental concern and activism. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 46:71-85.
146.Jump up ^ Peterson, M. N., and J. Liu. 2008. Impacts of religion on environmental worldviews: the Teton Valley case. Society and Natural Resources 21:704-718.
147.Jump up ^ Geiko Müller-Fahrenholz, America's battle for God: a European Christian looks at civil religion (2007) p xviii
148.Jump up ^ Curtis, Patriotism, Democracy, and Common Sense (2005) p 126
149.Jump up ^ "Harper reopens same-sex marriage debate". CBC TV. November 30, 2005. Retrieved February 29, 2008.
150.Jump up ^ "Harper declares same-sex marriage issue closed". CTV. December 7, 2006. Retrieved February 29, 2008.
151.Jump up ^ Alan J. Day, Political parties of the world (2002) p 343
152.Jump up ^ Andrew Vincent, Modern Political Ideologies. John Wiley & Sons, 2009. ISBN 1405154950 (p. 325).
153.Jump up ^ Richard P. Davis, Mirror Hate: the Convergent Ideology of Northern Ireland paramilitaries, 1966-1992. Dartmouth, 1994. ISBN 1855215586 . (p.80)
154.Jump up ^ Karen Armstrong, A History of God: the 4000-year quest of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Ballantine Books, 1994 p. 390.
155.Jump up ^ Fred Nile, Fred Nile: Autobiography (Sydney: Strand Publishing: 2001) ISBN 1-876825-79-0
156.Jump up ^ Nadal, Kevin (2011). Filipino American Psychology: A Handbook of Theory, Research, and Clinical Practice. John Wiley & Sons. p. 42. ISBN 9781118019771. Retrieved 22 August 2014.
157.Jump up ^ Alan J. Day, Political parties of the world (2002) p 449
158.Jump up ^ "Constitution Party National Platform". Constitution Party.com. 2012. Retrieved September 15, 2012.
Further reading[edit]
Boston, Rob. 2000. Close Encounters with the Religious Right: Journeys into the Twilight Zone of Religion and Politics. Prometheus Books. ISBN 978-1-57392-797-0
Boyd, James H., Politics and the Christian Voter
Brown, Ruth Murray (2002). For a "Christian America": A History of the Religious Right. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books. ISBN 1-573-92973-5.
Bruns, Roger A. 2002. Preacher: Billy Sunday and Big-Time American Evangelism. University of Illinois Press. ISBN 978-0-252-07075-4
Diamond, Sara. 1995. Roads to Dominion: Right-Wing Movements and Political Power in the United States. New York: Guilford. ISBN 0-89862-864-4. an attack from the left
Gloege, Timothy. 2015. Guaranteed Pure: The Moody Bible Institute, Business, and the Making of Modern Evangelicalism. The University of North Carolina Press. ISBN 1469621010
Green, John C., James L. Guth and Kevin Hill. 1993. “Faith and Election: The Christian right in Congressional Campaigns 1978–1988.” The Journal of Politics 55(1), (February): 80–91.
Green, John C. "The Christian Right and the 1994 Elections: A View from the States," PS: Political Science and Politics Vol. 28, No. 1 (Mar. 1995), pp. 5-8 in JSTOR
Himmelstein, Jerome L. 1990. To The Right: The Transformation of American Conservatism. University of California Press.
Kruse, Kevin M. One Nation Under God: How Corporate America Invented Christian America. Basic Books, 2015. ISBN 0465049494
Marsden, George. Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism.
Martin, William. 1996. With God on Our Side: The Rise of the Religious Right in America, New York: Broadway Books. ISBN 0-7679-2257-3
Micklethwait, John; Wooldridge, Adrian (2004). The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America. New York, NY: Penguin Books. ISBN 1-59420-020-3.
Noll, Mark. 1989. Religion and American Politics: From the Colonial Period to the 1980s.
Noll, Mark and Rawlyk, George: Amazing Grace: Evangelicalism in Australia, Canada, Britain, Canada and the United States: Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press: 1994: ISBN 0-7735-1214-4
Preston, Andrew, Bruce J. Schulman, and Julian E. Zelizer, eds. Faithful Republic: Religion and Politics in Modern America (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2015) viii, 213 pp.; Essays by scholars
Ribuffo, Leo P. 1983. The Old Christian right: The Protestant Far Right from the Great Depression to the Cold War. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. ISBN 0-87722-598-2.
Shields, Jon A., “Framing the Christian Right: How Progressives and Post-War Liberals Constructed the Religious Right,” Journal of Church and State, 53 (Autumn 2011), 635–55.
Smith, Jeremy Adam, 2007, Living in the Gap: The Ideal and Reality of the Christian Right Family. Public Eye magazine, Winter 2007–08.
Wald, Kenneth. 2003. Religion and Politics in the United States.
Wilcox, Clyde. Onward Christian Soldiers: The Religious Right in American Politics. survey by two neutral scholars
Williams, Daniel K. (2010). God’s Own Party: The Making of the Christian Right. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-534084-6.
Wills, Garry (1990). Under God: Religion and American Politics. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0-671-65705-4.



[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Christianity and politics


































































[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Religion and politics












































































































































































[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Social conservatism in the United States






























































































Portal icon


  



Categories: Evangelicalism
Christianity and political ideologies
Right-wing politics
New Right (United States)
Republican Party (United States)
Christian terminology






























Navigation menu




Create account
Log in




Article

Talk












Read

Edit

View history

























Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
Български
Deutsch
Français
한국어
Nederlands
日本語
Polski
Português
Simple English
Suomi
Svenska
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 19 June 2015, at 10:26.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
  

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_right














Christian right

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Part of a series on
Christianity
Jesus depicted as the Good Shepherd



Jesus ·
 Christ
 [show]











Bible ·
 Foundations
 [show]














Theology[show]

























History ·
 Tradition
 [show]























Related topics[show]




















Denominations ·
 Groups
 [show]









































Christian cross Christianity portal
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Part of a series on
Conservatism
Blue flag waving.svg

Variants[show]























Concepts[show]

















People[show]









































































































Organizations[show]

















Religious[hide]
Islamic Conservatism ·
 Conservative Christianity ·
 Traditionalist Catholics ·
 Christian right ·
 High Church Anglicanism
 

National variants[show]

















Related topics[show]























Conservatism portal
Politics portal

v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Christian right or religious right is a term used in the United States to describe right-wing Christian political factions that are characterized by their strong support of socially conservative policies. Christian conservatives principally seek to apply their understanding of the teachings of Christianity to politics and public policy by proclaiming the value of those teachings or by seeking to use those teachings to influence law and public policy.[1]
In the U.S., the Christian right is an informal coalition formed around a core of evangelical Protestants and Catholics.[2][3][4] The Christian right draws additional support from politically conservative mainline Protestants, Jews, and Mormons.[2][5] The movement has its roots in American politics going back as far as the 1940s and has been especially influential since the 1970s.[6][7] Their influence draws, in part, from grassroots activism as well as their focus on social issues and ability to motivate the electorate around those issues.[8] The Christian right is notable today for advancing socially conservative positions on issues including school prayer, intelligent design, stem cell research,[9] homosexuality,[10] contraception, abortion,[11] and pornography.[12]
Although the Christian right is usually associated with the U.S., similar movements have been a key factor in the politics of Canada, the Netherlands, Northern Ireland and Australia, among others.



Contents  [hide]
1 Terminology
2 History 2.1 Ability to organize 2.1.1 Grassroots activism
2.1.2 Political leaders and institutions

3 Institutions in the United States 3.1 National organizations
3.2 Partisan activity of churches
3.3 Electoral activity
3.4 Education
3.5 Media
4 Views 4.1 Education
4.2 Evolution
4.3 Sexual education
4.4 Homeschooling
4.5 Politics 4.5.1 Role of government
4.5.2 Separation of Church and State
4.5.3 Economics
4.5.4 The Middle East
4.6 Abortion and contraception
4.7 Biotechnology
4.8 Sex and sexuality
5 Criticism 5.1 Interpretation of Christianity
5.2 Race and diversity
5.3 LGBT rights
5.4 Use of Dominionism Labeling
6 Environment
7 Movements outside the United States 7.1 Canada
7.2 The Netherlands
7.3 Other countries
8 Associated minor political parties
9 See also
10 Notes
11 Further reading

Terminology[edit]
The Christian right is "also known as the New Christian Right (NCR) or the Religious Right", although some consider the religious right to be "a slightly broader category than Christian Right".[6][13]
John C. Green of the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life states that Jerry Falwell used the label religious right to describe himself. Gary Schneeberger, vice president of media and public relations for Focus on the Family, states that "[t]erms like 'religious right' have been traditionally used in a pejorative way to suggest extremism. The phrase 'socially conservative evangelicals' is not very exciting, but that's certainly the way to do it."[14]
Evangelical leaders like Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council have called attention to the problem of equating the term "Christian right" with evangelicals. Although evangelicals constitute the core constituency of the Christian right, not all evangelicals fit the description. The problem of description is further complicated by the fact that religious conservative may refer to other groups. Mennonites and the Amish, for example, are theologically conservative, however there are no overtly political organizations associated with these denominations.
History[edit]



Jerry Falwell, whose founding of the Moral Majority was a key step in the formation of the "New Christian Right"
The Christian right has been a notable force in both the Republican party and American politics since the late 1970s, when Baptist pastor Jerry Falwell and other Christian leaders began to urge conservative Christians to involve themselves in the political process. In response to the rise of the Christian right, the 1980 Republican Party platform assumed a number of its positions, including dropping support for the Equal Rights Amendment and adding support for a restoration of school prayer. While the platform also opposed abortion[6][7][15] and leaned towards restricting taxpayer funding for abortions and passing a constitutional amendment which would restore protection of the right to life for unborn children,[15] it also accepted that many Americans, including fellow Republicans, were divided on the issue.[15] Since about 1980, the Christian right has been associated with several institutions including the Moral Majority, the Christian Coalition, Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council.[16][17]
While the influence of the Christian right is typically traced to the 1980 Presidential election, Daniel K. Williams argues in God's Own Party that it had actually been involved in politics for most of the twentieth century. He also notes that the Christian right had previously been in alliance with the Republican Party in the 1940s through 1960s on matters such as opposition to communism and defending "a Protestant-based moral order."[18]
Into the 1960 election, Catholics and evangelicals worked against each other, as evangelicals mobilized their forces to defeat Catholics Al Smith in 1928 and John F. Kennedy in 1960.[19] Secularization came to be seen by Protestants as the biggest threat to Christian values, however,[20] and by the 1980s Catholic bishops and evangelicals had begun to work together on issues such as abortion.[4][21][22]
The alienation of Southern Democrats from the Democratic Party contributed to the rise of the right, as the counterculture of the 1960s provoked fear of social disintegration. In addition, as the Democratic Party became identified with a pro-choice position on abortion and with nontraditional societal values, social conservatives joined the Republican Party in increasing numbers.[23]
In 1976, U.S. President Jimmy Carter received the support of the Christian right largely because of his much-acclaimed religious conversion. However, Carter's spiritual transformation did not compensate for his liberal policies in the minds of Christian conservatives, as reflected in Jerry Falwell's criticism that "Americans have literally stood by and watched as godless, spineless leaders have brought our nation floundering to the brink of death."[24]
Ability to organize[edit]
The contemporary Christian right became increasingly vocal and organized in reaction to a series of United States Supreme Court decisions, most notably Bob Jones University v. Simon and Bob Jones University v. United States. It has also engaged in battles over pornography, obscenity, abortion, state sanctioned prayer in public schools, textbook contents (concerning creationism), homosexuality, and sexual education. It was long believed that the Supreme Court's decision to make abortion a Constitution-protected right in the 1973 Roe v Wade ruling was the driving force behind the New Christian Right Movement's rise in the 1970s.[25] Despite the large grassroots campaigns that were organized by the movement to protest the Roe decision, comments made by senior figures, including the movement's chief architect Paul Weyrich, have suggested that the New Christian Right Movement's rise was not centered around the issue of abortion, but rather Bob Jones University's refusal to comply with the Supreme Court's 1971 Green v. Connally ruling that permitted the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to collect penalty taxes from private religious schools that violated federal laws.[25] Biblical scholar and Religious Right critic Randall Balmer alleged that discussions he had with various New Christian Right Movement activists in the years following Roe v. Wade showed that there was widespread reluctance within the movement to push for new laws which would outlaw all forms of abortion.[25]



 Demonstrators at the 2004 March for Life in Washington D.C.
In Thy Kingdom Come, Balmer recounted comments that Weyrich made at a conference sponsored by a Religious Right organization, that they both attended in Washington in 1990:[25]
“ In the course of one of the sessions, Weyrich tried to make a point to his Religious Right brethren (no women attended the conference, as I recall). Let's remember, he said animatedly, that the Religious Right did not come together in response to the Roe decision. No, Weyrich insisted, what got us going as a political movement was the attempt on the part of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to rescind the tax-exempt status of Bob Jones University because of its racially discriminatory policies. ”
Bob Jones University, a private, non-denominational Protestant university located in Greenville, South Carolina, had policies that refused black students enrollment until 1971,[25] admitted only married blacks from 1971 to 1975,[25] and prohibited interracial dating and marriage between 1975 and 2000.[25] In the 1974 Bob Jones University v. Simon case, the US Supreme Court further enforced the Green decision and ruled that the IRS could penalize the University for enforcing segregation policies. The following year, the IRS sought to penalize Bob Jones University for refusing to allow interracial dating.[25] During this time, Weyrich organized a campaign to defend the University and alleged that various social issues that were deemed immoral by various religious conservatives justified the need to end federal intervention in religious schools.[25] As Balmer recalled:[25]
“ During the following break in the conference proceedings, I cornered Weyrich to make sure I had heard him correctly. He was adamant that, yes, the 1975 action by the IRS against Bob Jones University was responsible for the genesis of the Religious Right in the late 1970s. What about abortion? After mobilizing to defend Bob Jones University and its racially discriminatory policies, Weyrich said, these evangelical leaders held a conference call to discuss strategy. He recalled that someone suggested that they had the makings of a broader political movement—something that Weyrich had been pushing for all along—and asked what other issues they might address. Several callers made suggestions, and then, according to Weyrich, a voice on the end of one of the lines said, "How about abortion?" And that is how abortion was cobbled into the political agenda of the Religious Right. ”
Grassroots activism[edit]
Much of the Christian right's power within the American political system is attributed to their extraordinary turnout rate at the polls. The voters that coexist in the Christian right are also highly motivated and driven to get out a viewpoint on issues they care about. As well as high voter turnout, they can be counted on to attend political events, knock on doors and distribute literature. Members of the Christian right are willing to do the electoral work needed to see their candidate elected. Because of their high level of devotion, the Christian right does not need to monetarily compensate these people for their work.[8][26]
Political leaders and institutions[edit]
Led by Robert Grant advocacy group Christian Voice, Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority, Ed McAteer's Religious Roundtable Council, James Dobson's Focus on the Family, Paul Weyrich's Free Congress Foundation[27] and Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network, the new Religious Right combined conservative politics with evangelical and fundamentalist teachings.[16] The birth of the New Christian right, however, is usually traced to a 1979 meeting where televangelist Jerry Falwell was urged to create a "Moral Majority" organization.[17][28] In 1979, Weyrich was in a discussion with Falwell when he remarked that there was a "moral majority" of Americans ready to be called to political action.[27] Weyrich later recalled in a 2007 interview with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that after he mentioned the term "moral majority," Falwell "turned to his people and said, 'That's the name of our organization.' "[27]
Weyrich would then engineer a strong union between the Republican Party and many culturally conservative Christians.[27] Soon, Moral Majority became a general term for the conservative political activism of evangelists and fundamentalists such as Pat Robertson, James Robinson, and Jerry Falwell.[24] Howard Schweber, Professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, writes that "in the past two decades", "Catholic politicians have emerged as leading figures in the religious conservative movement."[3]
Institutions in the United States[edit]
 Wikinews has related news: Vanity Fair contributing editor Craig Unger on the rise of the Christian right
National organizations[edit]
See also: Moral Majority, Christian Voice (USA), Christian Coalition of America, Eagle Forum and The Family (Christian political organization)
One early attempt to bring the Christian right into American politics began in 1974 when Dr. Robert Grant, an early movement leader, founded American Christian Cause to advocate Christian ideological teachings in Southern California. Concerned that Christians overwhelmingly voted for President Jimmy Carter in 1976, Grant expanded his movement and founded Christian Voice to rally Christian voters behind socially conservative candidates.
In the late 1980s Pat Robertson founded the Christian Coalition of America, building from his 1988 presidential run, with Republican activist Ralph Reed, who became the spokesman for the Coalition. In 1992, the national Christian Coalition, Inc., headquartered in Virginia Beach, Virginia, began producing voter guides, which it distributed to conservative Christian churches. Under the leadership of Reed and Robertson, the Coalition quickly became the most prominent voice in the conservative Christian movement, its influence culminating with an effort to support the election of a conservative Christian to the presidency in 1996. In addition, they have talked encouraged the convergence of conservative Christian ideology with political issues, such as healthcare, the economy, education and crime.[29]



 Focus on the Family's Visitor's Welcome Center in Colorado Springs, Colorado.
Political activists lobbied within the Republican party locally and nationally to influence party platforms and nominations.[30] More recently Dr. James Dobson's group Focus on the Family, based in Colorado Springs, and the Family Research Council in Washington D.C. have gained enormous respect from Republican lawmakers. While strongly advocating for these ideological matters, Dobson himself is more wary of the political spectrum and much of the resources of his group are devoted to other aims such as media.[31] However, as a private citizen, Dobson has stated his opinion on presidential elections; on February 5, 2008, Dobson issued a statement regarding the 2008 presidential election and his strong disappointment with the Republican party's candidates.[32]
In an essay written in 1996, Ralph Reed argued against the moral absolutist tone of Christian right leaders, arguing for the Republican Party Platform to stress the moral dimension of abortion rather than placing emphasis on overturning Roe v. Wade. Reed believes that pragmatism is the best way to advocate for the Christian right.[33]
Partisan activity of churches[edit]
Overtly partisan actions by churches could threaten their 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status due to the Johnson Amendment of the Internal Revenue Code.[34] In one notable example, the former pastor of the East Waynesville Baptist Church in Waynesville, North Carolina "told the congregation that anyone who planned to vote for Democratic Sen. John Kerry should either leave the church or repent".[35] The church later expelled nine members who had voted for Kerry and refused to repent, which led to criticism on the national level. The pastor resigned and the ousted church members were allowed to return.[36]
The Alliance Defense Fund started the Pulpit Freedom Initiative[37] in 2008. ADF states that "[t]he goal of Pulpit Freedom Sunday is simple: have the Johnson Amendment declared unconstitutional – and once and for all remove the ability of the IRS to censor what a pastor says from the pulpit."[38]
Electoral activity[edit]
See also: Family Research Council
Christian right organizations sometimes conduct polls to determine which presidential candidates will receive the support of Christian right constituents. One such poll is taken at the Family Research Council's Values Voter Summit.[39][40] George W. Bush's electoral success owed much to his overwhelming support from white evangelical voters, who comprise 23% of the vote. In 2000 he received 68% of the white evangelical vote; in 2004 that percentage rose to 78%.[41]
Education[edit]
The Home School Legal Defense Association was co-founded in 1983 by Michael Farris, who would later establish Patrick Henry College, and Michael Smith. This organization attempts to challenge laws that serve as obstacles to allowing parents to home-school their children and to organize the disparate group of homeschooling families into a cohesive bloc. The number of homeschooling families has increased in the last twenty years, and around 80 percent of these families identify themselves as evangelicals.[42]
The main universities associated with the Christian right are:
Bob Jones University — Protestant Fundamentalist university, founded in 1927.[43]
Media[edit]
See also: The 700 Club and Christian Broadcasting Network
The media has played a major role in the rise of the Christian right since the 1920s and has continued to be a powerful force for political Christianity today. The role of the media for the Religious right has been influential in its ability to connect Christian audiences to the larger American culture while at the same time bringing and keeping religion into play as both a political and a cultural force.[44] The political agenda of the Christian right has been disseminated to the public through a variety of media outlets including radio broadcasting, television, and literature.
Religious broadcasting began in the 1920s through the radio.[44] Between the 1950s and 1980s, TV became a powerful way for the Christian right to influence the public through shows such as Pat Robertson's The 700 Club and The Family Channel. The Internet has also helped the Christian right reach a much larger audience. Organization's websites play a strong role in popularising the Christian right's stances on cultural and political issues, and informed interested viewers on how to get involved. The Christian Coalition, for example, has used the Internet to inform the public, as well as to sell merchandise and gather members.[45]
Views[edit]
Education[edit]
The Christian right has strong opinions on how American children should be educated, most notably emphasising their support for Christian activities in public schools.
The Christian right strongly advocates for a system of educational choice, using a system of school vouchers, instead of public education. Vouchers would be government funded and could be redeemed for "a specified maximum sum per child per years if spent on approved educational services".[46] This method would allow parents to determine which school their child attends while relieving the economic burden associated with private schools. The concept is popular among constituents of church-related schools, including those affiliated with Roman Catholicism.
Evolution[edit]
See also: Creation and evolution in public education
The Christian right in the United States promotes the teaching of creationism and intelligent design as opposed to biological evolution.[47][48] The Christian right has not supported the teaching of evolution in the past, but it does not have the ability to stop it being taught in public schools as was done during the Scopes Trial in Dayton, Tennessee, in which a science teacher went on trial for teaching about the subject of evolution in a public school.[49]
The Discovery Institute, through their Intelligent design initiative called the Center for Science and Culture, has endorsed the teach the controversy approach. Such an approach would ensure that both the strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary theory were discussed in the curriculum.[50] This tactic was criticized by Judge John E. Jones III in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, describing it as "at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard."[51]
The overwhelming majority of scientific research, both in the United States and elsewhere, has concluded that the theory of evolution, using the technical definition of the word theory, is the only explanation of the development of life, and an overwhelming majority of biologists strongly support its presentation in public school science classes.[52] Outside the United States, the Christian right have generally come to accept the theory of evolution.[53][54][55][56][57]
Sexual education[edit]
On the issue of sexual education in public schools, a spectrum of views exist within the Christian right. Some advocate removing sexual education from public schools, others support teaching abstinence until marriage, and still others advocate encouraging modesty[clarification needed] and chastity[clarification needed].
The Christian right has been successful in promoting abstinence-only curricula. 30 percent of America's sexual-education programs are abstinence based.[58] These programs promote abstinence until marriage as the only way to prevent pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases and the emotional issues that could arise from sexual activity.[59] Numerous scientific, peer-reviewed studies show that such programs do not limit teen pregnancy over the long run.[60][61][62]
Homeschooling[edit]
The Christian right sees homeschooling and private schooling as a valid alternative to public education for parents who object to the content being taught at school. In recent years, the percentage of children being homeschooled has risen from 1.7% of the student population in 1999 to 2.2% in 2003.[63] Much of this increase has been attributed to the desire to incorporate Christian teachings into the curriculum.[64] In 2003, 72% of parents who homeschooled their children cited the ability to provide religious or moral instruction as the reason for removing their children from public schools.[65]
Politics[edit]
See also: Separation of church and state, Separation of church and state in the United States, Establishment Clause, Dominionism, Christian Reconstructionism and Theonomy
As a right-wing political movement, the Christian right is strongly opposed to left-wing ideologies such as socialism and the welfare state. Soviet-style Communism is sometimes seen as a threat to the Western Christian tradition.[66]
Role of government[edit]
The Christian Right supports small government, economic liberalism and fiscal conservatism. The Christian right generally believes that the government should not interfere with the natural operations of the marketplace or the workplace.[67] It promotes conservative interpretations of the Bible as the basis for moral values, and enforcing such values by legislation.
Separation of Church and State[edit]
The Christian right believes that separation of church and state is not explicit in the American Constitution, believing instead that such separation is a creation of what it claims are activist judges in the judicial system.[68][69][70] In the United States, the Christian right often supports their claims by asserting that the country was "founded by Christians as a Christian Nation."[71][72] Members of the Christian right take the position that the Establishment Clause bars the federal government from establishing or sponsoring a state church (e.g., the Church of England), but does not prevent the government from acknowledging religion. The Christian right points out that the term "separation of church and state" is derived from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson, not from the Constitution itself.[73][74][75] Furthermore, the Alliance Defense Fund takes the view that the concept of "separation of church and state" has been utilized by the American Civil Liberties Union and its allies to inhibit public acknowledgment of Christianity and restrict the religious freedoms of Christians.[76]
Thus, Christian right leaders have argued that the Establishment Clause does not prohibit the display of religion in the public sphere. Leaders therefore believe that public institutions should be allowed to display the Ten Commandments. This interpretation has been repeatedly rejected by the courts, which have found that such displays violate the Establishment Clause.[dubious – discuss][citation needed] Public officials though are prohibited from using their authority in which the primary effect is "advancing or prohibiting religion", according to the Lemon Supreme Court test, and there cannot be an "excessive entanglement with religion" and the government.[77] Some, such as Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association, argue that the First Amendment, which specifically restricts Congress, applies only to the Congress and not the states. This position rejects the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.[78]
Generally, the Christian right supports the presence of religious institutions within government and the public sphere, and advocates for fewer restrictions on government funding for religious charities and schools.
Economics[edit]
Early American fundamentalists, such as John R. Rice[79][80] often favoured laissez-faire economics and were outspoken critics of the New Deal and later the Great Society.[79] The contemporary Christian right supports economic conservative policies such as tax cuts and social conservative policies such as child tax credits.[81]
The Middle East[edit]
The Religious Right has given very strong support to the state of Israel in recent decades, encouraging support for Israel in the United States government.[82] Some have linked Israel to Biblical prophesies; for example, Ed McAteer, founder of the Moral Majority, said "I believe that we are seeing prophecy unfold so rapidly and dramatically and wonderfully and, without exaggerating, makes me breathless."[83]
Abortion and contraception[edit]
See also: Bioethics and Family values



 This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (July 2011)
The Christian right opposes abortion, believing that life begins at conception and that abortion is murder. Therefore, those in the movement have worked toward the overturning of Roe v. Wade, and have also supported incremental steps to make abortion less available. Such efforts include bans on late-term abortion (including intact dilation and extraction),[84] prohibitions against Medicaid funding and other public funding for elective abortions, removal of taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood and other organizations that provide abortion services, legislation requiring parental consent or notification for abortions performed on minors,[85] legal protections for unborn victims of violence, legal protections for infants born alive following failed abortions, and bans on abortifacient medications.
The Christian right contends that morning-after pills such as Plan B and Ella are possible abortifacients, able to interfere with a fertilized egg's implantation in the uterine wall.[86] The labeling mandated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for Plan B and Ella state that they may interfere with implantation, but according to a June 2012, New York Times article, many scientists believe that they work only by interfering with ovulation and are arguing to have the implantation language removed from product labels. The Christian right maintains that the chemical properties of morning-after pills make them abortifacients and that the politics of abortion is influencing scientific judgments. Jonathan Imbody of the Christian Medical Association says he questions “whether ideological considerations are driving these decisions."[86]
Biotechnology[edit]
Due to the Christian right's views regarding ethics and to an extent due to negative views of eugenics common to most ideologies in North America, it has worked for the regulation and restriction of certain applications of biotechnology. In particular, the Christian right opposes therapeutic and reproductive human cloning, championing a 2005 United Nations ban on the practice,[87] and human embryonic stem cell research, which involves the extraction of one or more cells from a human embryo.[9] The Christian right supports research with adult stem cells, amniotic stem cells, and induced pluripotent stem cells which don't utilise cells from human embryos, as they view the harvesting of biological material from an embryo lacking the ability to give permission as an assault on a living being.
The Christian right also opposes euthanasia, and, in one highly publicized case, took an active role in seeking governmental intervention to prevent Terri Schiavo from being deprived of nutrition and hydration.
Sex and sexuality[edit]
The modern roots of the Christian right's views on sexual matters were evident in the 1950s, a period in which many Christian conservatives in the United States viewed sexual promiscuity as not only excessive, but in fact as a threat to their ideal vision of the country.[10]:30 Beginning in the 1970s, conservative Christian protests against promiscuity began to surface, largely as a reaction to the "permissive sixties" and an emerging prominence of sexual rights arising from Roe v Wade and the gay rights movement. The Christian right proceeded to make sexuality issues a priority political cause.[10]:28
The Christian right champions itself as the "self-appointed conscience of American society". During the 1980s, the movement was largely dismissed by political pundits and mainstream religious leaders as "a collection of buffoonish has-beens". Later, it re-emerged, better organized and more focused, taking firm positions against abortion, pornography, sexual deviency, and feminism.[12][88]:4
Influential Christian right organizations at the forefront of the anti-gay rights movement in the United States include Focus on the Family, Family Research Council and the Family Research Institute.[10]:15–16 An important stratagem in Christian right anti-gay politics is in its rejection of "the edicts of a Big Brother" state, allowing it to profit from "a general feeling of discontent and demoralization with government". As a result, the Christian right has endorsed smaller government, restricting its ability to arbitrate in disputes regarding values and traditions. In this context, gay rights laws have come to symbolize the government's allegedly unconstitutional "[interference] with individual freedom".[10]:170–171
The central tenets of Focus on the Family and similar organizations, such as the Family Research Council, emphasise issues such as abortion and the necessity of gender roles. A number of organizations, including the New Christian Right, "have in various ways rejected liberal America in favor of the regulation of pornography, anti-abortion legislation, the criminalization of homosexuality, and the virtues of faithfulness and loyalty in sexual partnerships", according to sociologist Bryan Turner.[11]
A large number of the Christian right view same-sex marriage as a central issue in the culture wars, more so than other gay rights issues and even more significantly than abortion.[88]:57[dubious – discuss] The legalization of same-sex marriage in 2004 changed the Christian right, causing it to put its opposition to these marriages above most other issues. It also created previously unknown interracial and ecumenical coalitions, and stimulated new electoral activity in pastors and congregations.[88]:58
Criticism[edit]
Criticisms of the Christian right come from many people who call for a caring and connected society focused on social responsibility and social justice. Theologian Michael Lerner has summarized:

The unholy alliance of the Political Right and the Religious Right threatens to destroy the America we love. It also threatens to generate a revulsion against God and religion by identifying them with militarism, ecological irresponsibility, fundamentalist antagonism to science and rational thought, and insensitivity to the needs of the poor and the powerless.[89]
Interpretation of Christianity[edit]
Further information: Christian left
One argument questioning the legitimacy of the Christian right is that Jesus Christ may be considered a leftist on the modern political spectrum. Jesus' concern with the poor and feeding the hungry, among other things, are core attributes of modern-day Socialism and opposition to the social disparity viewed by those on the right-wing as inevitable or favourable.[90][91][92]
Some criticize what they see as a politicization of Christianity because they say Jesus transcends our political concepts.[93][94][95]
Mikhail Gorbachev referred to Jesus as "the first Socialist".[96][97]
Race and diversity[edit]
The conclusions of a review of 112 studies on Christian faith and ethnic prejudice were summarized by a study in 1980 as being that "white Protestants associated with groups possessing fundamentalist belief systems are generally more prejudiced than members of non-fundamentalist groups, with unchurched whites exhibiting least prejudice."[98] The original review found that its conclusions held "regardless of when the studies were conducted, from whom the data came, the region where the data were collected, or the type of prejudice studied."[99] More recently in 2003, eight studies have found a positive correlation between fundamentalism and prejudice, using different measures of fundamentalism.[100]
A number of prominent members of the Christian right, including Jerry Falwell and Rousas John Rushdoony, have in the past supported segregation, with Falwell arguing in a 1958 sermon that integration will lead to the destruction of the white race.[101][102]
In Thy Kingdom Come, Randall Balmer recounts comments that Paul M. Weyrich, whom he describes as "one of the architects of the Religious Right in the late 1970s", made at a conference, sponsored by a Religious Right organization, that they both attended in Washington in 1990:[103]

In the course of one of the sessions, Weyrich tried to make a point to his Religious Right brethren (no women attended the conference, as I recall). Let's remember, he said animatedly, that the Religious Right did not come together in response to the Roe decision. No, Weyrich insisted, what got us going as a political movement was the attempt on the part of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to rescind the tax-exempt status of Bob Jones University because of its racially discriminatory policies.
—Paul M. Weyrich
Bob Jones University had policies that refused black students enrollment until 1971, and admitted only married blacks from 1971 to 1975. The university continued to forbid interracial dating until 2000.[104] In an interview with The Politico, University of Virginia theologian Charles Marsh, author of Wayward Christian Soldiers and the son of a Southern Baptist minister, stated:[105]

As someone who grew up in Mississippi and Alabama during the civil rights movement, … my reading is that the conservative Christian movement never was able to distinguish itself from the segregationist movement, and that is one of the reasons I find so much of the rhetoric familiar — and unsettling.
By the end of the civil rights movement, the way was set for this marriage of the Republican Party and conservative Christians. … At the Neshoba County Fair in Mississippi in 1980, (Ronald) Reagan's statement "I am for states' rights" was a remarkable moment in the conservative South. The Southern way of life was affirmed and then deftly grafted into national conservative politics.
LGBT rights[edit]
Whilst the Christian right in the United States is making a tough stand against the progression of LGBT rights, other Christians have taken a more lighthearted approach towards the matter, arguing that the biblical texts only oppose specific types of divergent sexual behaviour, such as paederasty (i.e. the sodomising of young boys by older men).[106][107][108][109]
Use of Dominionism Labeling[edit]
Main article: Dominionism
Some social scientists have used the word "dominionism" to refer to adherence to Dominion Theology[110][111][112] as well as to the influence in the broader Christian Right of ideas inspired by Dominion Theology.[110] Although such influence (particularly of Reconstructionism) has been described by many authors,[17][113] full adherents to Reconstructionism are few and marginalized among conservative Christians.[17][114][115] In the early 1990s, sociologist Sara Diamond[28][116] defined dominionism in her Ph.D. dissertation as a movement that, while including Dominion Theology and Reconstructionism as subsets, is much broader in scope, extending to much of the Christian Right.[117] She was followed by journalists including Frederick Clarkson[118][119] and Chris Hedges[120][121][122] and others who have stressed the influence of Dominionist ideas on the Christian right.[123][124][125][126][127][128][129][130][131][132]
The terms "dominionist" and "dominionism" are rarely used for self-description, and their usage has been attacked from several quarters. Journalist Anthony Williams charged that its purpose is "to smear the Republican Party as the party of domestic Theocracy, facts be damned."[133] Stanley Kurtz labeled it "conspiratorial nonsense," "political paranoia," and "guilt by association",[134] and decried Hedges' "vague characterizations" that allow him to "paint a highly questionable picture of a virtually faceless and nameless 'Dominionist' Christian mass."[135] Kurtz also complained about a perceived link between average Christian evangelicals and extremism such as Christian Reconstructionism:

The notion that conservative Christians want to reinstitute slavery and rule by genocide is not just crazy, it's downright dangerous. The most disturbing part of the Harper's cover story (the one by Chris Hedges) was the attempt to link Christian conservatives with Hitler and fascism. Once we acknowledge the similarity between conservative Christians and fascists, Hedges appears to suggest, we can confront Christian evil by setting aside 'the old polite rules of democracy.' So wild conspiracy theories and visions of genocide are really excuses for the Left to disregard the rules of democracy and defeat conservative Christians — by any means necessary.[134]
Lisa Miller of Newsweek said that many warnings about "dominionism" are "paranoid" and that "the word creates a siege mentality in which 'we' need to guard against 'them.'"[136] Ross Douthat of the New York Times noted that "many of the people that writers like Diamond and others describe as 'dominionists' would disavow the label, many definitions of dominionism conflate several very different Christian political theologies, and there’s a lively debate about whether the term is even useful at all."[137] According to Joe Carter of First Things, "the term was coined in the 1980s by Diamond and is never used outside liberal blogs and websites. No reputable scholars use the term for it is a meaningless neologism that Diamond concocted for her dissertation,"[138] while Jeremy Pierce of First Things coined the word "dominionismist" to describe those who promote the idea that there is a dominionist conspiracy.[139]
Other criticism has focused on the proper use of the term. Berlet wrote that "some critics of the Christian Right have stretched the term dominionism past its breaking point,"[140] and argued that, rather than labeling conservatives as extremists, it would be better to "talk to these people" and "engage them."[141] Sara Diamond wrote that "[l]iberals' writing about the Christian Right's take-over plans has generally taken the form of conspiracy theory", and argued that instead one should "analyze the subtle ways" that ideas like Dominionism "take hold within movements and why."[142]
Dan Olinger, a professor at the fundamentalist Bob Jones University in Greenville said, “We want to be good citizens and participants, but we’re not really interested in using the iron fist of the law to compel people to everything Christians should do.”[143] Bob Marcaurelle, interim pastor at Mountain Springs Baptist Church in Piedmont, said the Middle Ages were proof enough that Christian ruling groups are almost always corrupted by power. “When Christianity becomes the government, the question is whose Christianity?” Marcaurelle asked.[144]
Environment[edit]
[icon] This section requires expansion. (February 2015)
According to some social science research, Christians and members of the Christian right are typically less concerned about issues of environmental responsibility than the general public.[145][146]
Movements outside the United States[edit]
While the Christian Right is a strong movement in the United States, it has a presence as well in Canada. There is nothing quite like it in Europe.[147] Alan Curtis suggests that the Christian right "is a phenomenon that is very hard for Europeans to understand."[148]
Canada[edit]
Main article: Conservatism in Canada
See also: Abortion in Canada and Same-sex marriage in Canada
Religion has been a key factor in Canadian politics since well before Canadian Confederation in 1867, when the Conservatives were the party of traditionalist Catholics and Anglicans and the Liberals were the party of Protestant dissenters and anti-clerical Catholics. This pattern largely remained until the mid-twentieth century when a new division emerged between the Christian left (represented by the Social Gospel philosophy and ecumenicism) and the Christian right (represented by fundamentalism and biblical literalism). The Christian left (along with the secular and anti-religious left) became supporters of the New Democratic Party while the right moved to the Social Credit Party, especially in Western Canada, and to a lesser extent the Progressive Conservatives.
The Social Credit Party, founded in 1935 represented a major change in Canadian religious politics. Until that time, fundamentalists had shunned politics as "worldly", and a distraction from the proper practice of religion. However, the new party was founded by fundamentalist radio preacher and Bible school teacher William Aberhart or "Bible Bill". Aberhart mixed his own interpretation of scripture and prophecy with the monetary reform theories of social credit to create a movement that swept across Alberta, winning the provincial election of 1935 in a landslide. Aberhart and his disciple Ernest Manning then governed the province for the next forty years, several times trying to expand into the rest of Canada. In 1987 Manning's son, Preston Manning, founded the new Reform Party of Canada, which soon became the main party of the religious right. It won majorities of the seats in Western Canada in repeated elections, but was unable to break through in Eastern Canada, though it became the official opposition from 1997 to 2003 (Reform was renamed the Canadian Alliance in 2000). In 2003 the Canadian Alliance and the Progressive Conservatives merged to create the Conservative Party of Canada, led by Stephen Harper, a member of the Christian and Missionary Alliance, who went on to become prime minister in 2006.
Canada has had a Charter of Rights and Freedoms since the Canadian Constitution was patriated in 1982. As a result, there have been major changes in the law's application to issues that bear on individual and minority group rights. Abortions were completely decriminalized after two R. v. Morgentaler cases (in 1988 and in 1993). A series of provincial superior court decisions allowing same-sex marriage led the federal government to introduce legislation that introduced same sex marriage in all of Canada. The current prime minister, Stephen Harper and his Conservative Party of Canada, stated before taking office that he would hold a free vote on the issue,[149] but declared the issue closed after a vote in the Canadian House of Commons in 2006.[150]
The Netherlands[edit]
In the Netherlands Calvinist Protestants have long had their own political parties, now called the Reformed Political Party (SGP) on the right, and the ChristianUnion (CU) in the center. For generations they operated their own newspapers and broadcasting association. The SGP has about 28,000 members, and three members of parliament, of the 150. It has always been in opposition to the government.[151] The SGP has helped the Dutch government to get laws through the Second Chamber 2010-2012. In exchange that government did not increase the number of Sundays on which shopping is allowed.
Other countries[edit]
In Northern Ireland, the Reverend Ian Paisley led a Protestant fundamentalist party, the Democratic Unionist Party, which had a considerable influence on the province's culture.[152][153] Karen Armstrong has mentioned English evangelical leader Colin Urquhart as advocating positions similar to the Christian Right.[154] Some of the members of the Conservative Party also support some of the values of the Christian right.
In Australia, fundamentalist Christianity is the base for Fred Nile and his Christian Democratic Party as well as the Family First Party. Nile in 1967-68 was Assistant Director of the Billy Graham Crusade in Sydney. Both parties promote social conservatism, opposing gay rights and abortion.[155] Some party members of the Liberal and National Party Coalition and the Australian Labor Party also support some of the values of the Christian right on abortion and gay rights.
In the Philippines, due to Spanish colonization, and the introduction of the Catholic Church, religious conservatism has a strong influence on national policies.[156]
The Swiss Federal Democratic Union is a small conservative Protestant party with about 1% of the vote.[157]
In Scandinavia, the Centre Party is a bible-oriented fundamentalist party; it has about 4% of the votes in the Faroe Islands. However, the Norwegian Christian People's Party, the Swedish Christian Democrats and Danish Christian Democrats are less religiously orthodox and are similar to mainstream European Christian Democracy.
The Christian right has a strong position in several Conservative parties worldwide, although many members of these parties would also, paradoxically, strongly oppose such views.
Associated minor political parties[edit]
Part of the Politics series
Party politics

Political spectrum

Far-left/Radical left ·
 Left-wing

Centre-left
Centre/Radical centre

Centre-right
Right-wing ·
 Far-right/Radical right


Party platform

Extremist ·
 Radical

Reformist ·
 Moderate

Syncretic
Conservative ·
 Reactionary

Fundamentalist


Party system

Non-partisan ·
 Single-party

Dominant-party ·
 Two-party ·
 Multi-party


Coalition

Hung parliament ·
 Confidence and supply ·
 Minority government ·
 Rainbow coalition ·
 Grand coalition ·
 Full coalition
 National Unity government
Majority government

Lists
Political parties by country
Political parties by UN geoscheme
Political ideologies

Politics portal
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Some minor political parties have formed as vehicles for Christian right activists:
Christian Democratic Party (Australia)
Christian Party of Austria (Austria)
Christian Electoral Community (Austria)
Christian Heritage Party (Canada)
Party of Bible-abiding Christians (Germany)
Reformed Political Party (Netherlands)
The Christians (Norway)
Christian Unity Party (Norway)
Federal Democratic Union (Switzerland)
Christian Party (United Kingdom)
Constitution Party (United States)[158]
See also[edit]

Portal icon Christianity portal
Portal icon Conservatism portal
American Center for Law & Justice
Bible Belt (Netherlands)
Bible Belt
Campaign Life Coalition
Chalcedon Foundation
Social conservatism
Traditional conservatism
Christian politics
Christian Zionism
Religious right (disambiguation)
Save Our Children
Theoconservatism
Contrast: Christian left, Secular left, Secular right
Notes[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Sociology: understanding a diverse society Margaret L. Andersen, Howard Francis Taylor , Cengage Learning, 2005 ISBN 978-0-534-61716-5, ISBN 978-0-534-61716-5
2.^ Jump up to: a b Deckman, Melissa Marie (2004). School Board Battles: The Christian Right in Local Politics. Georgetown University Press. p. 48. ISBN 9781589010017. Retrieved April 10, 2014. "More than half of all Christian right candidates attend evangelical Protestant churches, which are more theologically liberal. A relatively large number of Christian Right candidates (24 percent) are Catholics; however, when asked to describe themselves as either "progressive/liberal" or "traditional/conservative" Catholics, 88 percent of these Christian right candidates place themselves in the traditional category."
3.^ Jump up to: a b Schweber, Howard. "The Catholicization of the American Right". The Huffington Post. Retrieved February 24, 2012. "In the past two decades, the American religious Right has become increasingly Catholic. I mean that both literally and metaphorically. Literally, Catholic writers have emerged as intellectual leaders of the religious right in universities, the punditocracy, the press, and the courts, promoting an agenda that at its most theoretical involves a reclamation of the natural law tradition of Thomas Aquinas and at its most practical involves appeals to the kind of common-sense, "everybody knows," or "it just is" arguments that have characterized opposition to same-sex marriage ... Meanwhile, in the realm of actual politics, Catholic politicians have emerged as leading figures in the religious conservative movement."
4.^ Jump up to: a b Melissa Marie Deckman. School Board Battles: the Christian right in Local Politics. Georgetown University Press. "Indeed, such significant Christian Right leaders such as Pat Buchanan and Paul Weyrich are conservative Catholics."
5.Jump up ^ Smith, David Whitten; Burr, Elizabeth Geraldine (2007). Understanding World Religions: A Road Map for Justice and Peace. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 106.
6.^ Jump up to: a b c Encyclopedia of Religion and Society
7.^ Jump up to: a b Williams, Daniel K. (2010). God's Own Party: The Making of the Christian Right. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 1, 2. ISBN 9780195340846.
8.^ Jump up to: a b John C. Green and Mark Silk, "Why Moral Values Did Count," Religion in the News, Spring 2005, http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/csrpl/RINVol8No1/WhyMoral%20ValuesDidCount.htm
9.^ Jump up to: a b "U-M: 6 new stem cell lines available for research". Associated Press. June 14, 2012.
10.^ Jump up to: a b c d e Herman, Didi (1997). The Antigay Agenda: Orthodox Vision and the Christian Right. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-32764-7.  – via Questia (subscription required)
11.^ Jump up to: a b Petersen, David L. (2005). "Genesis and Family Values". Journal of Biblical Literature 124 (1).  – via Questia (subscription required)
12.^ Jump up to: a b Kaplan, George R. (May 1994). "Shotgun Wedding: Notes on Public Education's Encounter with the New Christian Right". Phi Delta Kappan 75 (9).  – via Questia (subscription required)
13.Jump up ^ Grant Wacker
14.Jump up ^ Sarah Pulliam: Phrase 'Religious Right' Misused, Conservatives Say Christianity Today (Web-only), February 12, 2009.
15.^ Jump up to: a b c Republican Party Platform of 1980
16.^ Jump up to: a b Jerome Himmelstein, p. 97; Spiritual Warfare: The Politics of the Religious Right, p.49–50, Sara Diamond, South End Press, Boston, MA
17.^ Jump up to: a b c d Martin, William (1996). With God on Our Side: The Rise of the Religious Right in America. New York: Broadway Books. ISBN 0-553-06745-1.
18.Jump up ^ Williams 2010, p. 3
19.Jump up ^ Shaun Casey, The making of a Catholic president: Kennedy vs. Nixon 1960 (2009) pp. 3-11, 107-18
20.Jump up ^ Williams 2010, p. 5
21.Jump up ^ Joel D. Aberbach; Gillian Peele. Crisis of Conservatism?: The Republican Party, the Conservative Movement, and American Politics After Bush. Oxford University Press.
22.Jump up ^ Kristin E. Heyer; Mark J. Rozell; Michael A. Genovese. Catholics and Politics: the Dynamic Tension between Faith and Power. Georgetown University Press. "To summarize, in the Republican Party, many Catholic activists held conservative positions on key issues emphasized by Christian Right leaders, and they said that they supported the political activities of some Christian Right candidates."
23.Jump up ^ Perlstein, Rick (2008). Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America. Simon and Schuster. p. 164. ISBN 0743243021.
24.^ Jump up to: a b Reinhard, David (1983). The Republican Right since 1945. Lexington, KY: Univ Press of Kentucky. p. 245. ISBN 978-0813114842.
25.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j Evangelical: Religious Right Has Distorted the Faith, Linda Wertheimer, National Public Radio
26.Jump up ^ Geoffrey C. Layman, and John C. Green. 2006. “Wars and Rumors of Wars: The Contexts of Cultural Conflict in American Political Behavior.” British Journal of Political Science, Volume 36, Issue 1, January 2006, pp 61–89.
27.^ Jump up to: a b c d Elaine Woo (December 19, 2008). "Paul Weyrich, religious conservative and ex-president of Heritage Foundation, dies at 66". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved January 29, 2015.
28.^ Jump up to: a b Sara, Diamond (1995). Roads to Dominion. New York: Guilford Press. ISBN 0-89862-864-4.
29.Jump up ^ Micklethwait and Wooldridge, The Right Nation, 2005, 111
30.Jump up ^ Green, Rozell, and Wilcox, The Christian right in American Politics, 2003
31.Jump up ^ Micklethwait and Wooldridge, The Right Nation, 2005, 187
32.Jump up ^ "Dr. Dobson: ' I Cannot, and Will Not, Vote for McCain'". CitizenLink. Retrieved December 26, 2011.
33.Jump up ^ The Evolving Politics of the Christian Right, Matthew C. Moen, PS: Political Science and Politics, Vol. 29, No. 3 (Sep. 1996), pp. 461–464
34.Jump up ^ "Charities, Churches and Politics". Internal Revenue Service. Retrieved July 5, 2011.
35.Jump up ^ Democrats voted out of church because of their politics, members say, USA Today
36.Jump up ^ Political Split Leaves a Church Sadder and Grayer, New York Times, May 15, 2005
37.Jump up ^ Berlinerblau, Jacques (October 5, 2011). "Where does church end and state begin? - Georgetown/On Faith". The Washington Post. Retrieved December 26, 2011.
38.Jump up ^ "Speak Up : Pulpit Freedom Sunday - History of the Pulpit Initiative". Speakupmovement.org. Retrieved December 26, 2011.
39.Jump up ^ FRC Action: Tuesday, March 25, 2008[dead link]
40.Jump up ^ Michelle Vu, "Presidential Hopefuls Highlight 'Values' to Christian Conservatives," "The Christian Post," October 20, 2007 http://www.christianpost.com/article/20071020/29775_Presidential_Hopefuls_Highlight_'Values'_to_Christian_Conservatives.htm
41.Jump up ^ Religion and the Presidential Vote, Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, December 6, 2004
42.Jump up ^ Rosin, God's Harvard, 2007, 61–62
43.Jump up ^ Aaron Haberman Into the Wilderness: Ronald Reagan, Bob Jones University, and the Political Education of the Christian Right
44.^ Jump up to: a b Diamond, S. (2000) Not by Politics Alone: The Enduring Influence of the Christian right. New York: Guildford Press.
45.Jump up ^ "The Christian Coalition of America: America's Leading Grassroots Organization Defending Our Godly Heritage." The Christian Coalition of America. 2006. <http://www.cc.org/>.
46.Jump up ^ Spring, Joel. Political Agendas for Education: From the Religious Right to the Green Party. Second Edition. (Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2002)
47.Jump up ^ Pat Robertson Warns Pa. Town of Disaster, CBSNews.com
48.Jump up ^ Pa. Voters Rejected God, CBSNews.com
49.Jump up ^ "Court decisions regarding Evolution/Creationism". Don-lindsay-archive.org. Retrieved December 26, 2011.
50.Jump up ^ Slack, Gordy. The Battle Over the Meaning of Everything. (San Francisco: John Wiley and Sons, 2007), 67.
51.Jump up ^ Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District: Memorandum Opinion by Judge John E. Jones III, page 89
52.Jump up ^ "Project Steve". Ncse.com. Retrieved December 26, 2011.
53.Jump up ^ [1]
54.Jump up ^ [2]
55.Jump up ^ [3]
56.Jump up ^ [4]
57.Jump up ^ [5]
58.Jump up ^ Harris, Sam. Letter to a Christian Nation 2006
59.Jump up ^ A brief history of Abstinence-only until Marriage Funding, Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States[dead link]
60.Jump up ^ Sex Ed Can Help Prevent Teen Pregnancy. Washingtonpost.com. Retrieved on August 24, 2013.
61.Jump up ^ UGA study: Higher pregnancy and birth rates in states with abstinence-only sex ed programs in schools | Get Schooled. Blogs.ajc.com (November 30, 2011). Retrieved on 2013-08-24.
62.Jump up ^ Abstinence-only education does not lead to abstinent behavior, researchers find. Sciencedaily.com (November 29, 2011). Retrieved on 2013-08-24.
63.Jump up ^ "Homeschooling in the United States: 2003 - Executive Summary". Nces.ed.gov. Retrieved December 26, 2011.
64.Jump up ^ "Popularity of homeschooling rises nationwide, curriculum concerns, safety cited". Christianexaminer.com. Retrieved December 26, 2011.
65.Jump up ^ "Homeschooling in the United States: 2003 - Parents’ Reasons for Homeschooling". Nces.ed.gov. Retrieved December 26, 2011.
66.Jump up ^ Micklethwait and Wooldridge (2004). The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America. Penguin Books.
67.Jump up ^ "The Christian Right, The Twentieth Century, Divining America: Religion in American History, TeacherServe, National Humanities Center". Nationalhumanitiescenter.org. Retrieved December 26, 2011.
68.Jump up ^ Pat Robertson The First Amendment
69.Jump up ^ "Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists". Loc.gov. Retrieved December 26, 2011.
70.Jump up ^ ThinkExist.com Quotations. "James Madison quotes". Thinkexist.com. Retrieved December 26, 2011.
71.Jump up ^ House Resolution 888, United States House of Representatives
72.Jump up ^ A Nonbeliever. "America is not founded upon Christianity but the Enlightenment". Freethought.mbdojo.com. Retrieved December 26, 2011.
73.Jump up ^ Watkins, Shanea. "The Mythical "Wall of Separation": How a Misused Metaphor Changed Church–State Law, Policy, and Discourse". Heritage.org. Retrieved December 26, 2011.
74.Jump up ^ "Wall of Separation Between Church and State: Myth, Reality, Results". Family Research Council. Retrieved December 26, 2011.
75.Jump up ^ Charles E. Steele (January 18, 2009). "Separation of Church and State, Thomas Jefferson, and the First Amendment". Schoolprayerinamerica.info. Retrieved December 26, 2011.
76.Jump up ^ "Religious Freedom". Alliance Defense Fund. Retrieved December 26, 2011.
77.Jump up ^ "Lemon Test". Answers.com. Retrieved December 26, 2011.
78.Jump up ^ "The First Amendment means what it says - RIGHTLYCONCERNED.COM". Action.afa.net. February 19, 2010. Retrieved December 26, 2011.
79.^ Jump up to: a b "[Rice] melded politics and religion in a way that made it very clear what side of any political issue he believed God was on.God had been very clearly opposed to the New Deal "socialism" of Franklin Roosevelt, and God was equally opposed to the Great Society "socialism" of Lyndon Baines Johnson". Andrew Himes, The Sword of the Lord: The Roots of Fundamentalism in an American Family Chiara Press, 2011 ISBN 1453843752, (p.271).
80.Jump up ^ Nathan Andrew Finn, The Development of Baptist Fundamentalism in the South, 1940-1980 ProQuest, 2007 ISBN 0549371435 (p.204).
81.Jump up ^ Our Legislative Agenda, Christian Coalition of America
82.Jump up ^ Stephen Spector, Evangelicals and Israel: the story of American Christian Zionism (2008) pp 23-49
83.Jump up ^ Jan G. Linn, What's Wrong With The Christian Right (2004) p 27
84.Jump up ^ Partial Birth Abortion Act of 2003 108th United States Congress (1st session)
85.Jump up ^ Allen Wants Parents Notified - Daily Press. Articles.dailypress.com (April 9, 1994). Retrieved on 2013-08-24.
86.^ Jump up to: a b Belluck, Pam (June 6, 2012). "Abortion Qualms on Morning-After Pill May Be Unfounded". The New York Times.
87.Jump up ^ "U.N. Adopts Pro-Life Declaration Against Human Cloning". Newsmax. February 19, 2005.
88.^ Jump up to: a b c Green, Hohn (2006). Green, John C.; Rozell, Mark J.; Wilcox, Clyde, ed. THE VALUES CAMPAIGN? The Christian Right and the 2004 Elections. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. ISBN 978-1589011083.  – via Questia (subscription required)
89.Jump up ^ Lerner, Michael (2006). The Left Hand of God (book). Harper Collins. p. 1. ISBN 978-0-06084247-5.
90.Jump up ^ Johnson, Paul (2005). Auburn University website "Right-wing, rightist". A Political Glossary. Retrieved 23 October 2014.
91.Jump up ^ Bobbio, Norberto and Allan Cameron,Left and Right: The Significance of a Political Distinction. University of Chicago Press, 1997, p. 51, 62. ISBN 978-0-226-06246-4
92.Jump up ^ J. E. Goldthorpe. An Introduction to Sociology. Cambridge, England, UK; Oakleigh, Melbourne, Australia; New York, New York, USA p. 156. ISBN 0-521-24545-1.
93.Jump up ^ [6] Herman Cain calls Jesus conservative
94.Jump up ^ Stephen J. Nichols: Jesus Made in America: A Cultural History from the Puritans to "The Passion of the Christ" pp. 204-209. Westmont, IL, 2008.
95.Jump up ^ Shermer, Michael (July 21, 2010). "Was Jesus a Conservative or a Liberal? - Michael Shermer - Skeptic". True/Slant. Retrieved December 26, 2011.
96.Jump up ^ "Biography of Mikhail Gorbachev". National Cold War Exhibition. Trustees of the Royal Air Force Museum. Retrieved August 10, 2012.
97.Jump up ^ Marvin Olasky: The Tragedy of American Compassion passim. Washington D.C. 1992.
98.Jump up ^ Sex Prejudice among White Protestants: Like or Unlike Ethnic Prejudice?, Charles W. Peek, Sharon Brown Social Forces, Vol. 59, No. 1 (Sep. 1980), pp. 169–185
99.Jump up ^ Christian Faith and Ethnic Prejudice: A Review and Interpretation of Research, Richard L. Gorsuch, Daniel Aleshire, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Vol. 13, No. 3 (Sep. 1974), pp. 281–307
100.Jump up ^ Altemeyer and Hunsberger (1992); Wylie and Forest, (1992); Hunsberger, (1996); Jackson and Esses, (1997); Hunsberger, Owusu and Duck, (1999); Laythe et al., (2001); Altemeyer, (2003)), cited in The Psychology of Religion, Third Edition: An Empirical Approach (2003), Spilka et al., p466
101.Jump up ^ http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/01/09/justice_sunday/, Michelle Goldberg, Salon.com
102.Jump up ^ Avenging angel of the religious right, Max Blumenthal, Salon.com
103.Jump up ^ Evangelical: Religious Right Has Distorted the Faith, Linda Wertheimer, National Public Radio
104.Jump up ^ [Susannah Meadows, "Passing the Torch at Bob Jones U." Newsweek Web Exclusive [MSNBC link expired], January 29, 2005, hard copy at Fundamentalism File, Mack Library, BJU.
105.Jump up ^ Religion and politics don't mix, Robin T. Reid, The Politico
106.Jump up ^ Why TCPC Advocates Equal Rights for Gay and Lesbian People
107.Jump up ^ Equality for Gays and Lesbians
108.Jump up ^ Bible & Homosexuality Home Page. Pflagdetroit.org (1998-12-11). Retrieved on 2013-08-24.
109.Jump up ^ [7][dead link]
110.^ Jump up to: a b Barron, Bruce. 1992. Heaven on Earth? The Social & Political Agendas of Dominion Theology. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan. ISBN 0-310-53611-1.
111.Jump up ^ Davis, Derek H. and Hankins, Barry, 2003. New Religious Movements and Religious Liberty in America, Baylor University Press.
112.Jump up ^ Davidson, Carl; Harris, Jerry (2006). "Globalisation, theocracy and the new fascism: the US Right's rise to power". Race and Class 47 (3): 47–67. doi:10.1177/0306396806061086.
113.Jump up ^ Berlet, Chip and Matthew N. Lyons. 2000. Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort. New York: Guilford Press.
114.Jump up ^ Diamond, Sara, 1998. Not by Politics Alone: The Enduring Influence of the Christian Right, New York: Guilford Press, p.213.
115.Jump up ^ Ortiz, Chris 2007. "Gary North on D. James Kennedy", Chalcedon Blog, September 6, 2007.
116.Jump up ^ Diamond, Sara. 1989. Spiritual Warfare: The Politics of the Christian Right. Boston: South End Press.
117.Jump up ^ In her early work, Diamond sometimes used the term dominion theology to refer to this broader movement, rather than to the specific theological system of Reconstructionism.
118.Jump up ^ Clarkson, Frederick, 1994. Christian Reconstructionism: Theocratic Dominionism Gains Influence", The Public Eye 8, Nos. 1 & 2, March/June 1994.
119.Jump up ^ Clarkson, Frederick. 1997. Eternal Hostility: The Struggle Between Theocracy and Democracy. Monroe, Maine: Common Courage. ISBN 1-56751-088-4
120.Jump up ^ The Christian Right and the Rise of American Fascism By Chris Hedges, TheocracyWatch.
121.Jump up ^ Hedges, Chris (May 2005). "Feeling the hate with the National Religious Broadcasters". Harper's. Retrieved April 11, 2007.
122.Jump up ^ Hedges, Chris, American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America, Free Press, 2006.
123.Jump up ^ Goldberg, Michelle 2006. Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism. New York: W. W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-06094-2 (10). ISBN 978-0-393-06094-2 (13).
124.Jump up ^ Phillips, Kevin 2006. American Theocracy: The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21st century ISBN 0-670-03486-X
125.Jump up ^ McCarraher, Eugene 2006. "Empire Falls", Commonweal 133(9), May 5, 2006.
126.Jump up ^ Yurica, Katherine 2004. "The Despoiling of America" published February 11, 2004. Retrieved October 3, 2007. And also published in Toward a New Political Humanism, Edited by Barry F. Seidman and Neil J. Murphy, Prometheus Books, New York, 2004.
127.Jump up ^ Yurica, Katherine 2004. Blood Guilty Churches, January 19, 2005. Retrieved October 6, 2007.
128.Jump up ^ Yurica, Katherine 2005. Yurica Responds to Stanley Kurtz Attack, May 23, 2005. Retrieved October 6, 2007.
129.Jump up ^ Maddox, Marion 2005. God under Howard: The Rise of the Religious Right in Australian Politics, Allen & Unwin.
130.Jump up ^ Rudin, James 2006. The Baptizing of America: The Religious Right's Plans for the Rest of Us, New York: Thunder's Mouth Press.
131.Jump up ^ Harris, Sam 2007. "God's dupes", Los Angeles Times, March 15, 2007. Retrieved October 8, 2007.
132.Jump up ^ "The Rise of the Religious Right in the Republican Party", TheocracyWatch, Last updated: December 2005; URL accessed May 8, 2006.
133.Jump up ^ Anthony Williams (May 4, 2005). ""Dominionist" Fantasies". FrontPage Magazine. Retrieved May 4, 2007.
134.^ Jump up to: a b Stanley Kurtz (May 2, 2005). "Dominionist Domination: The Left runs with a wild theory". National Review Online. Retrieved October 6, 2007.
135.Jump up ^ Stanley Kurtz (April 28, 2005). "Scary Stuff". National Review Online. Retrieved October 6, 2007.
136.Jump up ^ Miller, Lisa, 2011. 'Dominionism' beliefs among conservative Christians overblown. Newsweek. Published August 18, 2011. Retrieved September 8, 2011.
137.Jump up ^ Douthat, Ross 2011. The New Yorker and Francis Schaeffer. New York Times. Published August 29, 2011. Retrieved September 11, 2011.
138.Jump up ^ Carter, Joe, 2011. A Journalism Lesson for the New Yorker. First Things. Published August 10, 2011. Retrieved August 19, 2011.
139.Jump up ^ Pierce, Jeremy, 2011. Dominionismists. First Things. Published August 14, 2011. Retrieved September 8, 2011.
140.Jump up ^ Berlet, Chip, 2005. The Christian Right, Dominionism, and Theocracy. Retrieved September 25, 2007.
141.Jump up ^ Ellis Henican, "A spiritual olive branch for the far-right faithful," Newsday, May 1, 2005. Reposted at YuricaReport.com. Retrieved September 23, 2006
142.Jump up ^ Diamond, Sara. 1995. "Dominion Theology." Z Magazine, February 1995
143.Jump up ^ "Pastors: Christian government not Jesus’ cause". Independentmail.com. February 10, 2007. Retrieved December 26, 2011.
144.Jump up ^ February 12, 2007, The State, Columbia, SC "Pastors don’t embrace movement"
145.Jump up ^ Sherkat, D. E., and C. G. Ellison. 2007. Structuring the religion-environment connection: identifying religious influences on environmental concern and activism. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 46:71-85.
146.Jump up ^ Peterson, M. N., and J. Liu. 2008. Impacts of religion on environmental worldviews: the Teton Valley case. Society and Natural Resources 21:704-718.
147.Jump up ^ Geiko Müller-Fahrenholz, America's battle for God: a European Christian looks at civil religion (2007) p xviii
148.Jump up ^ Curtis, Patriotism, Democracy, and Common Sense (2005) p 126
149.Jump up ^ "Harper reopens same-sex marriage debate". CBC TV. November 30, 2005. Retrieved February 29, 2008.
150.Jump up ^ "Harper declares same-sex marriage issue closed". CTV. December 7, 2006. Retrieved February 29, 2008.
151.Jump up ^ Alan J. Day, Political parties of the world (2002) p 343
152.Jump up ^ Andrew Vincent, Modern Political Ideologies. John Wiley & Sons, 2009. ISBN 1405154950 (p. 325).
153.Jump up ^ Richard P. Davis, Mirror Hate: the Convergent Ideology of Northern Ireland paramilitaries, 1966-1992. Dartmouth, 1994. ISBN 1855215586 . (p.80)
154.Jump up ^ Karen Armstrong, A History of God: the 4000-year quest of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Ballantine Books, 1994 p. 390.
155.Jump up ^ Fred Nile, Fred Nile: Autobiography (Sydney: Strand Publishing: 2001) ISBN 1-876825-79-0
156.Jump up ^ Nadal, Kevin (2011). Filipino American Psychology: A Handbook of Theory, Research, and Clinical Practice. John Wiley & Sons. p. 42. ISBN 9781118019771. Retrieved 22 August 2014.
157.Jump up ^ Alan J. Day, Political parties of the world (2002) p 449
158.Jump up ^ "Constitution Party National Platform". Constitution Party.com. 2012. Retrieved September 15, 2012.
Further reading[edit]
Boston, Rob. 2000. Close Encounters with the Religious Right: Journeys into the Twilight Zone of Religion and Politics. Prometheus Books. ISBN 978-1-57392-797-0
Boyd, James H., Politics and the Christian Voter
Brown, Ruth Murray (2002). For a "Christian America": A History of the Religious Right. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books. ISBN 1-573-92973-5.
Bruns, Roger A. 2002. Preacher: Billy Sunday and Big-Time American Evangelism. University of Illinois Press. ISBN 978-0-252-07075-4
Diamond, Sara. 1995. Roads to Dominion: Right-Wing Movements and Political Power in the United States. New York: Guilford. ISBN 0-89862-864-4. an attack from the left
Gloege, Timothy. 2015. Guaranteed Pure: The Moody Bible Institute, Business, and the Making of Modern Evangelicalism. The University of North Carolina Press. ISBN 1469621010
Green, John C., James L. Guth and Kevin Hill. 1993. “Faith and Election: The Christian right in Congressional Campaigns 1978–1988.” The Journal of Politics 55(1), (February): 80–91.
Green, John C. "The Christian Right and the 1994 Elections: A View from the States," PS: Political Science and Politics Vol. 28, No. 1 (Mar. 1995), pp. 5-8 in JSTOR
Himmelstein, Jerome L. 1990. To The Right: The Transformation of American Conservatism. University of California Press.
Kruse, Kevin M. One Nation Under God: How Corporate America Invented Christian America. Basic Books, 2015. ISBN 0465049494
Marsden, George. Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism.
Martin, William. 1996. With God on Our Side: The Rise of the Religious Right in America, New York: Broadway Books. ISBN 0-7679-2257-3
Micklethwait, John; Wooldridge, Adrian (2004). The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America. New York, NY: Penguin Books. ISBN 1-59420-020-3.
Noll, Mark. 1989. Religion and American Politics: From the Colonial Period to the 1980s.
Noll, Mark and Rawlyk, George: Amazing Grace: Evangelicalism in Australia, Canada, Britain, Canada and the United States: Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press: 1994: ISBN 0-7735-1214-4
Preston, Andrew, Bruce J. Schulman, and Julian E. Zelizer, eds. Faithful Republic: Religion and Politics in Modern America (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2015) viii, 213 pp.; Essays by scholars
Ribuffo, Leo P. 1983. The Old Christian right: The Protestant Far Right from the Great Depression to the Cold War. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. ISBN 0-87722-598-2.
Shields, Jon A., “Framing the Christian Right: How Progressives and Post-War Liberals Constructed the Religious Right,” Journal of Church and State, 53 (Autumn 2011), 635–55.
Smith, Jeremy Adam, 2007, Living in the Gap: The Ideal and Reality of the Christian Right Family. Public Eye magazine, Winter 2007–08.
Wald, Kenneth. 2003. Religion and Politics in the United States.
Wilcox, Clyde. Onward Christian Soldiers: The Religious Right in American Politics. survey by two neutral scholars
Williams, Daniel K. (2010). God’s Own Party: The Making of the Christian Right. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-534084-6.
Wills, Garry (1990). Under God: Religion and American Politics. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0-671-65705-4.



[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Christianity and politics


































































[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Religion and politics












































































































































































[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Social conservatism in the United States






























































































Portal icon


  



Categories: Evangelicalism
Christianity and political ideologies
Right-wing politics
New Right (United States)
Republican Party (United States)
Christian terminology






























Navigation menu




Create account
Log in




Article

Talk












Read

Edit

View history

























Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
Български
Deutsch
Français
한국어
Nederlands
日本語
Polski
Português
Simple English
Suomi
Svenska
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 19 June 2015, at 10:26.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
  

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_right














Christian fundamentalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

For the political movement, see Christian right.
Part of a series on
Christianity
Jesus depicted as the Good Shepherd



Jesus ·
 Christ
 [show]











Bible ·
 Foundations
 [show]














Theology[show]

























History ·
 Tradition
 [show]























Related topics[show]




















Denominations ·
 Groups
 [show]









































Christian cross Christianity portal
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Christian fundamentalism began in the late 19th- and early 20th-century among British and American Protestants[1][2] as a reaction to theological liberalism and cultural modernism. Fundamentalists argued that 19th century modernist theologians had misinterpreted or rejected certain doctrines, especially biblical inerrancy, that they viewed as the fundamentals of Christian faith.[3] A few scholars regard Catholics who reject modern theology in favor of more traditional doctrines as fundamentalists.[4] Scholars debate how much the terms "evangelical" and "fundamentalist" are synonymous.[5]
Interpretations of the fundamentalist movement have changed over time.[6] Fundamentalism is a movement manifested in various denominations with various theologies, rather than a single denomination or systematic theology. It became active in the 1910s after the release of the Fundamentals, a twelve-volume set of essays, apologetic and polemic, written by conservative Protestant theologians to defend what they saw as Protestant orthodoxy. The movement became more organized in the 1920s within U.S. Protestant churches, especially Baptist and Presbyterian. Many such churches adopted a "fighting style" and combined Princeton theology with Dispensationalism.[2] Since 1930, many fundamentalist churches in North America and around the world have been represented by the Independent Fundamental Churches of America (renamed IFCA International in 1996), which holds to biblical inerrancy, the virgin birth of Jesus, substitutionary atonement, the literal resurrection of Christ, and the Second Coming of Christ, among other doctrines.



Contents  [hide]
1 Terminology
2 Origins 2.1 Evangelicalism
2.2 Dispensationalism
2.3 Princeton Theology (biblical inerrancy)
2.4 The Fundamentals and modernism
3 Changing interpretations
4 In North America 4.1 In the United States 4.1.1 Evolution
4.1.2 Christian right
4.1.3 Neo-evangelicalism
4.2 In Canada
5 Catholic fundamentalism
6 Criticism
7 See also
8 Bibliography 8.1 Primary sources
9 References
10 External links

Terminology[edit]
The term fundamentalism was coined by Baptist editor Curtis Lee Laws in 1920 to designate Christians who were ready "to do battle royal for the Fundamentals". The term was quickly adopted by all sides. Laws borrowed it from the title of a series of essays published between 1910 and 1915 called The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth. The term "Fundamentalism" entered the English language in 1922, and is often capitalized when referring to the religious movement.[1]
The term fundamentalist is controversial in the 21st century, as it can carry the connotation of religious extremism, even though it was coined by movement leaders. Some who hold these beliefs reject the label of "fundamentalism", seeing it as too pejorative,[7] while to others it has become a banner of pride. Such Christians prefer to use the term fundamental, as opposed to fundamentalist (e.g., Independent Fundamental Baptist and Independent Fundamental Churches of America).[8] The term is sometimes confused with Christian legalism.[9][10]
Origins[edit]
Fundamentalism came from multiple streams in British and American theology of the 19th century.[11]
Evangelicalism[edit]
The first important stream was Evangelicalism as it emerged in the revivals of the First Great Awakening and Second Great Awakening in America and the Methodism movement in England in the period 1730-1840. They in turn had been influenced by the Pietism movement in Germany. Church historian Randall Balmer explains that:
"Evangelicalism itself, I believe, is a quintessentially North American phenomenon, deriving as it did from the confluence of Pietism, Presbyterianism, and the vestiges of Puritanism. Evangelicalism picked up the peculiar characteristics from each strain – warmhearted spirituality from the Pietists (for instance), doctrinal precisionism from the Presbyterians, and individualistic introspection from the Puritans – even as the North American context itself has profoundly shaped the various manifestations of evangelicalism: fundamentalism, neo-evangelicalism, the holiness movement, Pentecostalism, the charismatic movement, and various forms of African-American and Hispanic evangelicalism.[12]
Dispensationalism[edit]
A second stream was Dispensationalism, a new interpretation of the Bible developed in the 1830s in England. Darby's ideas were disseminated by the notes and commentaries in the widely used Scofield Reference Bible, published in 1909. Dispensationalism was a millenarian theory that divided all of time into seven different stages, called "dispensations", which were seen as stages of God's revelation. At the end of each stage, according to this theory, God punished humanity for having been found wanting in God's testing. Secularism, liberalism, and immorality in the 1920s were believed to be signs that humanity had again failed God's testing. Dispensationalists believed that the world was on the verge of the last stage, where a final battle will take place at Armageddon, followed by Christ's return and 1,000 year reign.[13]
Princeton Theology (biblical inerrancy)[edit]
Main article: Princeton Theology
See also: Biblical inerrancy and Biblical literalism
A third stream was Princeton Theology, which responded to higher criticism of the Bible by developing from the 1840s to 1920 the doctrine of inerrancy. This doctrine, also called biblical inerrancy, stated that the Bible was divinely inspired, religiously authoritative, and without error.[14][15] The Princeton Seminary professor of Theology Charles Hodge insisted that the Bible was inerrant because God dictated its contents to the men who wrote it. Princeton theologians believed that the Bible should be read differently from any other historical document, and also that Christian modernism and liberalism led people to hell just like non-Christian religions.[13]
Biblical inerrancy was a particularly significant rallying point for fundamentalists.[16] This approach to the Bible is associated with conservative evangelical hermeneutical approaches to Scripture ranging from the historical-grammatical method to biblical literalism.[17]
The Fundamentals and modernism[edit]
Main article: The Fundamentals
A fourth stream—the immediate spark—was the 12-volume study The Fundamentals, published 1910-1915.[18] Sponsors subsidized the free distribution of over three million individual volumes to clergy, laymen and libraries. This version[19] stressed several core beliefs, including:
The inerrancy of the Bible
The literal nature of the Biblical accounts, especially regarding Christ's miracles and the Creation account in Genesis
The Virgin Birth of Christ
The bodily resurrection and physical return of Christ
The substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross
Like Princeton Theology, The Fundamentals reflected growing opposition among many evangelical Christians towards higher criticism of the Bible and modernism.
Changing interpretations[edit]
The interpretations given the fundamentalist movement have changed over time, with most older interpretations being based on the concepts of social displacement or cultural lag.[6] Some in the 1930s, including H. Richard Niebuhr, understood the conflict between fundamentalism and modernism to be part of a broader social conflict between the cities and the country.[6] In this view the fundamentalists were country and small-town dwellers who were reacting against the progressivism of city dwellers.[6] Fundamentalism was seen as a form of anti-intellectualism during the 1950s; in the early 1960s Richard Hofstadter interpreted it in terms of status anxiety.[6]
Beginning in the late 1960s the movement began to be seen as "a bona fide religious, theological and even intellectual movement in its own right."[6] Instead of interpreting fundamentalism as a simple anti-intellectualism, Paul Carter argued that "fundamentalists were simply intellectual in a way different than their opponents."[6] Moving into the 1970s, Earnest R. Sandeen saw fundamentalism as arising from the confluence of Princeton Theology and millennialism.[6]
George Marsden defined fundamentalism as "militantly anti-modernist Protestant evangelicalism" in his 1980 work Fundamentalism and American Culture.[6] "Militant" in this sense does not mean "violent", it means "aggressively active in a cause".[20] Marsden saw fundamentalism arising from a number of preexisting evangelical movements that responded to various perceived threats by joining forces.[6] He argued that Christian fundamentalists were American evangelical Christians who in the 20th century opposed "both modernism in theology and the cultural changes that modernism endorsed. Militant opposition to modernism was what most clearly set off fundamentalism."[21] Others viewing militancy as a core characteristic of the fundamentalist movement include Philip Melling, Ung Kyu Pak and Ronald Witherup.[22][23][24] Donald McKim and David Wright (1992) argue that "in the 1920s, militant conservatives (fundamentalists) united to mount a conservative counter-offensive. Fundamentalists sought to rescue their denominations from the growth of modernism at home."[25]
According to Marsden, recent scholars differentiate "fundamentalists" from "evangelicals" by arguing the former were more militant and less willing to collaborate with groups considered "modernist" in theology. In the 1940s the more moderate faction of fundamentalists maintained the same theology but began calling themselves "evangelicals" to stress their less militant position.[26] Roger Olson (2007) identifies a more moderate faction of fundamentalists, which he calls "postfundamentalist", and says "most postfundamentalist evangelicals do not wish to be called fundamentalists, even though their basic theological orientation is not very different." According to Olson, a key event was the formation of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) in 1942.[27] Barry Hankins (2008) has a similar view, saying "beginning in the 1940s....militant and separatist evangelicals came to be called fundamentalists, while culturally engaged and non-militant evangelicals were supposed to be called evangelicals."[28]
Timothy Weber views fundamentalism as "a rather distinctive modern reaction to religious, social and intellectual changes of the late 1800s and early 1900s, a reaction that eventually took on a life of its own and changed significantly over time."[6]
In North America[edit]
Fundamentalist movements existed in most North American Protestant denominations by 1919 following attacks on modernist theology in Presbyterian and Baptist denominations. Fundamentalism was especially controversial among Presbyterians.[29]
In the United States[edit]
 Wikisource has original text related to this article:
The Doctrinal Statement of the World Conference on Christian Fundamentals 1919

A leading organizer of the Fundamentalist campaign against modernism in the United States was William Bell Riley, a Northern Baptist based in Minneapolis, where his Northwestern Bible and Missionary Training School (1902), Northwestern Evangelical Seminary (1935), and Northwestern College (1944) produced thousands of graduates. At a large conference in Philadelphia in 1919, Riley created the World Christian Fundamentals Association (WCFA), which became the chief interdenominational fundamentalist organization in the 1920s. Although the fundamentalist drive of the 1920s to take control of the major Protestant denominations failed at the national level, the network of churches and missions fostered by Riley shows the movement was growing in strength, especially in the U.S. South. Both rural and urban in character, the flourishing movement acted as a denominational surrogate and fostered a militant evangelical Christian orthodoxy. Riley was president of WCFA until 1929, after which the WFCA faded in importance.[30] The Independent Fundamental Churches of America became a leading association of U.S. fundamentalist churches upon its founding in 1930.



 J. Gresham Machen Memorial Hall
Much of the enthusiasm for mobilizing fundamentalism came from Christian seminaries and Christian "Bible colleges" in the United States. Two leading fundamentalist seminaries were the Dispensationalist Dallas Theological Seminary, founded in 1924 by Lewis Sperry Chafer, and the Reformed Westminster Theological Seminary, formed in 1929 under the leadership and funding of former Princeton Theological Seminary professor J. Gresham Machen.[31] Many Bible colleges were modeled after the Moody Bible Institute in Chicago. Dwight Moody was influential in preaching the imminence of the Kingdom of God that was so important to Dispensationalism.[32] Bible colleges prepared ministers who lacked college or seminary experience with intense study of the Bible, often using the Scofield Reference Bible of 1909, a King James Version Bible with detailed notes interpreting passages from a Dispensational perspective.
Although U.S. fundamentalism began in the North, the movement's greatest popular strength was in the South, especially among Southern Baptists, where individuals (and sometimes entire churches) left the convention to join other Baptist denominations perceived as "more conservative" or to join the Independent Baptist movement. By the late 1920s the national media had identified it with the South, largely ignoring manifestations elsewhere.[33] By the 1970s Christian fundamentalism was deeply entrenched and concentrated in the U.S. South. In 1972–1980 General Social Surveys, 65 percent of respondents from the "East South Central" region (comprising Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Alabama) self-identified as fundamentalist. The share of fundamentalists was at or near 50 percent in "West South Central" (Texas to Arkansas) and "South Atlantic" (Florida to Maryland), and at 25 percent or below elsewhere in the country, with the low of nine percent in New England. The pattern persisted into the 21st century; in 2006–2010 surveys, the average share of fundamentalists in the East South Central Region stood at 58 percent, while, in New England, it climbed slightly to 13 percent.[34]
Evolution[edit]
Many fundamentalists in the 1920s devoted themselves to fighting the teaching of evolution in the nation's schools and colleges, especially by passing state laws that affected public schools. William Bell Riley took the initiative in the 1925 Scopes Trial to bring in famed politician William Jennings Bryan as an assistant to the local prosecutor, who helped attract national media attention to the trial. In the half century after the Scopes Trial, fundamentalists had little success in shaping government policy, and generally were defeated in their efforts to reshape the mainline denominations, which refused to join fundamentalist attacks on evolution.[13] Particularly after the Scopes Trial, liberals saw a division between Christians in favor of the teaching of evolution, whom they viewed as educated and tolerant, and Christians against evolution, whom they viewed as narrow-minded, tribal, obscurantist.[35]
However Edwards (2000) challenges the consensus view among scholars that in the wake of the Scopes trial, fundamentalism retreated into the political and cultural background, a viewpoint evidenced in the movie "Inherit the Wind" and the majority of contemporary historical accounts. Rather, he argues, the cause of fundamentalism's retreat was the death of its leader, Bryan. Most fundamentalists saw the trial as a victory and not a defeat, but Bryan's death soon after created a leadership void that no other fundamentalist leader could fill. Bryan, unlike the other leaders, brought name recognition, respectability, and the ability to forge a broad-based coalition of fundamentalist religious groups to argue for the anti-evolutionist position.[36]
Gatewood (1969) analyzes the transition from the anti-evolution crusade of the 1920s to the creation science movement of the 1960s. Despite some similarities between these two causes, the creation science movement represented a shift from religious to scientific objections to Darwin's theory. Creation science also differed in terms of popular leadership, rhetorical tone, and sectional focus. It lacked a prestigious leader like Bryan, utilized scientific rather than religious rhetoric, and was a product of California and Michigan instead of the South.[37]
Webb (1991) traces the political and legal struggles between strict creationists and Darwinists to influence the extent to which evolution would be taught as science in Arizona and California schools. After Scopes was convicted, creationists throughout the United States sought similar antievolution laws for their states. These included Reverends R. S. Beal and Aubrey L. Moore in Arizona and members of the Creation Research Society in California, all supported by distinguished laymen. They sought to ban evolution as a topic for study, or at least relegate it to the status of unproven theory perhaps taught alongside the biblical version of creation. Educators, scientists, and other distinguished laymen favored evolution. This struggle occurred later in the Southwest than in other US areas and persisted through the Sputnik era.[38]
In recent times, the courts have heard cases on whether or not the Book of Genesis's creation account should be taught in science classrooms alongside evolution, most notably in the 2005 federal court case Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.[39] Creationism was presented under the banner of intelligent design, with the book Of Pandas and People being its textbook. The trial ended with the judge deciding that teaching intelligent design in a science class was unconstitutional as it was a religious belief and not science.[40]
The original fundamentalist movement divided along clearly defined lines within conservative evangelical Protestantism as issues progressed. Many groupings, large and small, were produced by this schism. Neo-evangelicalism, Reformed and Lutheran Confessionalism, the Heritage movement, and Paleo-Orthodoxy have all developed distinct identities, but none of them acknowledge any more than an historical overlap with the fundamentalist movement, and the term is seldom used of them. The broader term "evangelical" includes fundamentalists as well as people with similar or identical religious beliefs who do not engage the outside challenge to the Bible as actively.[41]
Christian right[edit]
Main article: Christian right
The latter half of the twentieth century witnessed a surge of interest in organized political activism by U.S. fundamentalists. Dispensational fundamentalists viewed the 1948 establishment of the state of Israel as an important sign of the fulfillment of biblical prophecy, and support for Israel became the centerpiece of their approach to U.S. foreign policy.[42] United States Supreme Court decisions also ignited fundamentalists' interest in organized politics, particularly Engel v. Vitale in 1962, which prohibited state-sanctioned prayer in public schools, and Abington School District v. Schempp in 1963, which prohibited mandatory Bible reading in public schools.[43] By the time Ronald Reagan ran for the presidency in 1980, fundamentalist preachers, like the prohibitionist ministers of the early 20th century, were organizing their congregations to vote for supportive candidates.[44]
Leaders of the newly political fundamentalism included Rob Grant and Jerry Falwell. Beginning with Grant's American Christian Cause in 1974, Christian Voice throughout the 1970s and Falwell's Moral Majority in the 1980s, the Christian Right began to have a major impact on American politics. In the 1980s and 1990s, the Christian Right was influencing elections and policy with groups such as the Family Research Council (founded 1981 by James Dobson) and the Christian Coalition (formed in 1989 by Pat Robertson) helping conservative politicians, especially Republicans to win state and national elections.[45]
Neo-evangelicalism[edit]
American evangelist Billy Graham came from a fundamentalist background, but parted company with that movement because of his choice, early in his ministry (1950s), to cooperate with other Christians.[46] Graham represents a movement that arose within fundamentalism, but has increasingly become distinct from it, known as neo-evangelicalism or New Evangelicalism (a term coined by Harold J. Ockenga, the "Father of New Evangelicalism").
In Canada[edit]
In Canada, Fundamentalism was less of a force,[47] but it had an aggressive leader in English-born Thomas Todhunter Shields (1873–1955), who led 80 churches out of the Baptist federation in Ontario in 1927 and formed the Union of regular Baptist churches of Ontario and Quebec. He was affiliated with the Baptist Bible Union, based in the United States. His newspaper, The Gospel Witness, reached 30,000 subscribers in 16 countries, giving him an international reputation. He was one of the founders of the international Council of Christian Churches.[48]
Oswald J. Smith (1889–1986), reared in rural Ontario and educated at Moody Church in Chicago, set up The Peoples Church in Toronto in 1928. A dynamic preacher and leader in Canadian fundamentalism, Smith wrote 35 books and engaged in missionary work worldwide. The reverend Billy Graham called him, "the greatest combination pastor, hymn writer, missionary statesman, an evangelist of our time".[49]
Catholic fundamentalism[edit]
Some scholars describe certain Catholics as fundamentalists. Such Catholics believe in a literal interpretation of Vatican declarations, particularly those pronounced by the Pope,[50][51][52] and believe that individuals who do not agree with the magisterium are condemned by God.[53] Martin E. Marty described Catholic fundamentalists as advocating mass in Latin and mandatory clerical celibacy while opposing ordination of women priests and dismissals of artificial birth control.[54] The Society of St. Pius X, a product of Marcel Lefebvre, is cited as a stronghold of Catholic fundamentalism.[55][56]
Criticism[edit]
Fundamentalists have been criticized for presenting God "more as a God of judgement and punishment than as a God of love and mercy".[57] Groups such as the ACLU have brought suit against fundamentalist attempts to teach creationism in public schools, as in the federal court case of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.[58]
In the 1930s fundamentalism was viewed by many as a "last gasp" vestige of something in the past.[59] More recent scholarship has shifted away from that view.[6][60]
Confessional Lutheran churches reject the fundamentalist position and believe that all Biblical teachings are essential:

Are there some "non-essential" or "non-fundamental" teachings about which we can safely disagree? If they believe the answer is "yes," that in itself is already reason for alarm. The Bible teaches that no teachings of the Bible can safely be set aside. "Agreeing to disagree" is really not God-pleasing agreement.[61]
As, according to Lutheran apologists, Martin Luther said:

The doctrine is not ours, but God's, and we are called to be his servants. Therefore we cannot waver or change the smallest point of doctrine.[62]
See also[edit]
Bible believer
British Conservative Evangelicalism
Christian eschatological differences
Christian Reconstructionism
Christian right
Christian Zionism
Dominionism
Reformed Fundamentalism
Bibliography[edit]
Almond, Gabriel A., R. Scott Appleby, and Emmanuel Sivan, eds. (2003). Strong Religion: The Rise of Fundamentalisms around the World and text search
Armstrong, Karen (2001). The Battle for God. New York: Ballantine Books. ISBN 0-345-39169-1.
Ballmer, Randall (2nd ed 2004). Encyclopedia of Evangelicalism
Ballmer, Randall (2010). The Making of Evangelicalism: From Revivalism to Politics and Beyond, 120pp
Ballmer, Randall (2000). Blessed Assurance: A History of Evangelicalism in America
Beale, David O. (1986). In Pursuit of Purity: American Fundamentalism Since 1850. Greenville, SC: Bob Jones University (Unusual Publications). ISBN 0-89084-350-3.
Bebbington, David W. (1990). "Baptists and Fundamentalists in Inter-War Britain." In Keith Robbins, ed. Protestant Evangelicalism: Britain, Ireland, Germany and America c.1750-c.1950. Studies in Church History subsidia 7, 297–326. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, ISBN 0-631-17818-X.
Bebbington, David W. (1993). "Martyrs for the Truth: Fundamentalists in Britain." In Diana Wood, ed. Martyrs and Martyrologies, Studies in Church History Vol. 30, 417–451. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, ISBN 0-631-18868-1.
Barr, James (1977). Fundamentalism. London: SCM Press. ISBN 0-334-00503-5.
Caplan, Lionel (1987). Studies in Religious Fundamentalism. London: The MacMillan Press, ISBN 0-88706-518-X.
Carpenter, Joel A. (1999). Revive Us Again: The Reawakening of American Fundamentalism. Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-512907-5.
Cole, Stewart Grant (1931). The History of Fundamentalism, Greenwood Press ISBN 0-8371-5683-1.
Doner, Colonel V. (2012). Christian Jihad: Neo-Fundamentalists and the Polarization of America, Samizdat Creative
Elliott, David R. (1993). "Knowing No Borders: Canadian Contributions to Fundamentalism." In George A. Rawlyk and Mark A. Noll, eds. Amazing Grace: Evangelicalism in Australia, Britain, Canada and the United States. Grand Rapids: Baker. 349–374, ISBN 0-7735-1214-4.
Dollar, George W. (1973). A History of Fundamentalism in America. Greenville: Bob Jones University Press.
Hankins, Barry. (2008). American Evangelicals: A Contemporary History of A Mainstream Religious Movement, scholarly history excerpt and text search
Harris, Harriet A. (1998). Fundamentalism and Evangelicals. Oxford University. ISBN 0-19-826960-9.
Hart, D. G. (1998). "The Tie that Divides: Presbyterian Ecumenism, Fundamentalism and the History of Twentieth-Century American Protestantism." Westminster Theological Journal 60, 85–107.
Hughes, Richard Thomas (1988). The American quest for the primitive church 257pp excerpt and text search
Laats, Adam (Feb. 2010). "Forging a Fundamentalist 'One Best System': Struggles over Curriculum and Educational Philosophy for Christian Day Schools, 1970–1989," History of Education Quarterly, 50 (Feb. 2010), 55–83.
Longfield, Bradley J. (1991). The Presbyterian Controversy. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-508674-0.
Marsden, George M. (1995). "Fundamentalism as an American Phenomenon." In D. G. Hart, ed. Reckoning with the Past, 303–321. Grand Rapids: Baker.
Marsden; George M. (1980). Fundamentalism and American Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-502758-2; the standard scholarly history (by a fundamentalist); excerpt and text search
Marsden, George M. (1991). Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism excerpt and text search
McCune, Rolland D. (1998). "The Formation of New Evangelicalism (Part One): Historical and Theological Antecedents." Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal, 3, 3–34.
McLachlan, Douglas R. (1993). Reclaiming Authentic Fundamentalism. Independence, Mo.: American Association of Christian Schools. ISBN 0-918407-02-8.
Noll, Mark (1992). A History of Christianity in the United States and Canada.. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 311–389. ISBN 0-8028-0651-1.
Noll, Mark A., David W. Bebbington and George A. Rawlyk eds. (1994). Evangelicalism: Comparative Studies of Popular Protestantism in North America, the British Isles and Beyond, 1700–1990.
Rawlyk, George A., and Mark A. Noll, eds. (1993). Amazing Grace: Evangelicalism in Australia, Britain, Canada, and the United States.
Rennie, Ian S. (1994). "Fundamentalism and the Varieties of North Atlantic Evangelicalism." in Mark A. Noll, David W. Bebbington and George A. Rawlyk eds. Evangelicalism: Comparative Studies of Popular Protestantism in North America, the British Isles and Beyond, 1700–1990. New York: Oxford University Press. 333–364, ISBN 0-19-508362-8.
Russell, C. Allyn (1976), Voices of American Fundamentalism: Seven Biographical Studies, Philadelphia: Westminster Press, ISBN 0-664-20814-2
Ruthven, Malise (2007). Fundamentalism: A Very Short Introduction excerpt and text search
Sandeen, Ernest Robert (1970). The Roots of Fundamentalism: British and American Millenarianism, 1800–1930, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, ISBN 0-226-73467-6
Seat, Leroy (2007). Fed Up with Fundamentalism: A Historical, Theological, and Personal Appraisal of Christian Fundamentalism. Liberty, MO: 4-L Publications. ISBN 978-1-59526-859-4
Stackhouse, John G. (1993). Canadian Evangelicalism in the Twentieth Century
Trollinger, William V. (1991). God's Empire: William Bell Riley and Midwestern Fundamentalism excerpts and text search
Utzinger, J. Michael (2006). Yet Saints Their Watch Are Keeping: Fundamentalists, Modernists, and the Development of Evangelical Ecclesiology, 1887-1937, Macon: Mercer University Press, ISBN 0-86554-902-8
Witherup, Ronald D. S.S. (2001). Biblical Fundamentalism: What Every Catholic Should Know, 101pp excerpt and text search
Young, F. Lionel, III, (2005). "To the Right of Billy Graham: John R. Rice's 1957 Crusade Against New Evangelicalism and the End of the Fundamentalist-Evangelical Coalition." Th. M. Thesis, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.
Primary sources[edit]
Hankins, Barr, ed. (2008). Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism: A Documentary Reader excerpt and text search
Torrey, R. A., Dixon, A. C., et al. (eds.) (1917). The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth partial version at web.archive.org. Accessed 2011-07-26.
Trollinger, William Vance, Jr., ed. (1995). The Antievolution Pamphlets of William Bell Riley. (Creationism in Twentieth-Century America: A Ten-Volume Anthology of Documents, 1903-1961. Vol. 4.) New York: Garland, 221 pp. excerpt and text search
References[edit]
1.^ Jump up to: a b Fundamentalism at merriam-webster.com. Accessed 2011-07-28.
2.^ Jump up to: a b Marsden (1980), pp. 55-62, 118-23.
3.Jump up ^ Sandeen (1970), p. 6
4.Jump up ^ Hill, Brennan; Knitter, Paul F.; Madges, William. Faith, Religion & Theology: A Contemporary Introduction. Twenty-Third Publications. "Catholic fundamentalists, like their Protestant counterparts, fear that the church has abandoned the unchanging truth of past tradition for the evolving speculations of modern theology. They fear that Christian societies have replaced systems of absolute moral norms with subjective decision making and relativism. Like Protestant fundamentalists, Catholic fundamentalists propose a worldview that is rigorous and clear cut."
5.Jump up ^ Roger E. Olson (2004). The Westminster Handbook to Evangelical Theology. Westminster John Knox Press. pp. 3–6. summarizes the debate.
6.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j k l Reid, D. G., Linder, R. D., Shelley, B. L., & Stout, H. S. (1990). In Dictionary of Christianity in America. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. Entry on Fundamentalism
7.Jump up ^ Robbins, Dale A. (1995). What is a Fundamentalist Christian?. Grass Valley, California: Victorious Publications. Retrieved 2009-12-01.
8.Jump up ^ Horton, Ron. "Christian Education at Bob Jones University". Greenville, South Carolina: Bob Jones University. Retrieved 2009-12-01.
9.Jump up ^ Wilson, William P. "Legalism and the Authority of Scripture". Retrieved 19 March 2010.
10.Jump up ^ Morton, Timothy S. "From Liberty to Legalism - A Candid Study of Legalism, "Pharisees," and Christian Liberty". Retrieved 19 March 2010.
11.Jump up ^ Sandeen (1970), ch 1
12.Jump up ^ Randall Balmer (2002). The Encyclopedia of Evangelicalism. Westminster John Knox Press. pp. vii–viii.
13.^ Jump up to: a b c Kee, Howard Clark; Emily Albu; Carter Lindberg; J. William Frost; Dana L. Robert (1998). Christianity: A Social and Cultural History. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. p. 484. ISBN 0-13-578071-3.
14.Jump up ^ Marsden (1980), pp 109-118
15.Jump up ^ Sandeen (1970) pp 103-31
16.Jump up ^ Marsden, George M. (1995). Reforming Fundamentalism: Fuller Seminary and the New Evangelicalism. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. p. 118.
17.Jump up ^ Beyond Biblical Literalism and Inerrancy: Conservative Protestants and the Hermeneutic Interpretation of Scripture, John Bartkowski, Sociology of Religion, 57, 1996.
18.Jump up ^ Sandeen (1970) pp 188-207
19.Jump up ^ The Fundamentals A Testimony to the Truth
20.Jump up ^ "Militant" in Merriam Webster Third Unabridged Dictionary (1961) which cites "militant suffragist" and "militant trade unionism" as example.
21.Jump up ^ Marsden (1980), Fundamentalism and American Culture p. 4
22.Jump up ^ Philip H. Melling, Fundamentalism in America: millennialism, identity and militant religion (1999). As another scholar points out, "One of the major distinctives of fundamentalism is militancy."
23.Jump up ^ Ung Kyu Pak, Millennialism in the Korean Protestant Church (2005) p. 211.
24.Jump up ^ Ronald D. Witherup, a Catholic scholar, says: "Essentially, fundamentalists see themselves as defending authentic Christian religion... The militant aspect helps to explain the desire of fundamentalists to become active in political change." Ronald D. Witherup, Biblical Fundamentalism: What Every Catholic Should Know (2001) p 2
25.Jump up ^ Donald K. McKim and David F. Wright, Encyclopedia of the Reformed faith (1992) p. 148
26.Jump up ^ George M. Marsden (1995). Reforming Fundamentalism: Fuller Seminary and the New Evangelicalism. Wm. B. Eerdmans. p. xi.
27.Jump up ^ Roger E. Olson, Pocket History of Evangelical Theology (2007) p. 12
28.Jump up ^ Barry Hankins, Francis Schaeffer and the shaping of Evangelical America (2008) p 233
29.Jump up ^ Marsden, George M. (1995). Reforming Fundamentalism: Fuller Seminary and the New Evangelicalism. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. pp. 109–118.
30.Jump up ^ William Vance Trollinger, Jr. "Riley's Empire: Northwestern Bible School and Fundamentalism in the Upper Midwest". Church History 1988 57(2): 197-212. 0009-6407
31.Jump up ^ Marsden, George M. (1995). Reforming Fundamentalism: Fuller Seminary and the New Evangelicalism. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. p. 33.
32.Jump up ^ Kee, Howard Clark; Emily Albu; Carter Lindberg; J. William Frost; Dana L. Robert (1998). Christianity: A Social and Cultural History. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. p. 484.
33.Jump up ^ Mary Beth Swetnam Mathews, Rethinking Zion: how the print media placed fundamentalism in the South (2006) page xi
34.Jump up ^ "General Social Survey database".
35.Jump up ^ David Goetz, "The Monkey Trial". Christian History 1997 16(3): 10-18. 0891-9666; Burton W. Folsom, Jr. "The Scopes Trial Reconsidered." Continuity 1988 (12): 103-127. 0277-1446, by a leading conservative scholar
36.Jump up ^ Mark Edwards, "Rethinking the Failure of Fundamentalist Political Antievolutionism after 1925". Fides Et Historia 2000 32(2): 89-106. 0884-5379
37.Jump up ^ Willard B. Gatewood, Jr., ed. Controversy in the Twenties: Fundamentalism, Modernism, & Evolution (1969)
38.Jump up ^ George E. Webb, "The Evolution Controversy in Arizona and California: From the 1920s to the 1980s." Journal of the Southwest 1991 33(2): 133-150. 0894-8410. See also Christopher K. Curtis, "Mississippi's Anti-Evolution Law of 1926." Journal Of Mississippi History 1986 48(1): 15-29.
39.Jump up ^ "Kitzmiller v. Dover: Intelligent Design on Trial". National Center for Science Education. October 17, 2008. Retrieved 21 June 2011.
40.Jump up ^ Wikisource:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District et al., H. Conclusion
41.Jump up ^ Harris, Harriet A. Fundamentalism and Evangelicals (2008) pp.39, 313.
42.Jump up ^ Aaron William Stone, Dispensationalism and United States foreign policy with Israel (2008) excerpt
43.Jump up ^ Bruce J. Dierenfield, The Battle over School Prayer (2007) p 236
44.Jump up ^ Oran Smith, The Rise of Baptist Republicanism (2000)
45.Jump up ^ Albert J. Menendez, Evangelicals at the Ballot Box (1996) pp 128-74
46.Jump up ^ Bob Jones University Drops Interracial Dating Ban | Christianity Today|A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction
47.Jump up ^ John G. Stackhouse, Canadian Evangelicalism in the Twentieth Century (1993)
48.Jump up ^ C. Allyn Russell, "Thomas Todhunter Shields: Canadian Fundamentalist," Foundations, 1981, Vol. 24 Issue 1, pp 15-31
49.Jump up ^ David R. Elliott, "Knowing No Borders: Canadian Contributions to American Fundamentalism," in George A. Rawlyk and Mark A. Noll, eds., Amazing Grace: Evangelicalism in Australia, Britain, Canada, and the United States (1993)
50.Jump up ^ Gerald A. Arbuckle. Violence, Society, and the Church: A Cultural Approach. Liturgical Press. p. 208.
51.Jump up ^ Richard P. McBrien. The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism. HarperCollins. "fundamentalism, Catholic, the Catholic forms of religious fundamentalism, including especially an unhistorical and literal reading not of the Bible but also of the official teachings of the Church."
52.Jump up ^ Brennan Hill, Paul F. Knitter, William Madges. Faith, Religion & Theology: A Contemporary Introduction. Twenty-Third Publications. "Catholic fundamentalism also has its distinctive traits. Whereas Protestant fundamentalists invest absolute authority in the literal interpretation of Scripture, fundamentalist Catholics invest absolute authority in the literal interpretation of Vatican declarations and in the figure of the pope. In the words of Catholic theologian Thomas O'Meara, "creeping infallibility," that is, the belief that everything said by the pope or a Vatican congregation is incapable of error, accomplishes for Catholic fundamentalists what the biblical page does for Protestant fundamentalists."
53.Jump up ^ Brennan Hill, Paul F. Knitter, William Madges. Faith, Religion & Theology: A Contemporary Introduction. Twenty-Third Publications. "Catholic fundamentalists, like Protestant fundamentalists, stress the need for an absolute external authority to guide the thinking and decision making of the individual. They do so because of the sinfulness of the human person. Left to his or her own devices, the individual, they feel, will generally make bad judgements. Consequently, individual freedom must be directed by the right authority. In the case of Catholic fundamentalism, this means literal adherence fully to past tradition, or who have difficulty assenting to every official statement of the hierarchical magisterium, are judged harshly. Such sinners, say fundamentalists, are condemned by God."
54.Jump up ^ Brennan Hill, Paul F. Knitter, William Madges. Faith, Religion & Theology: A Contemporary Introduction. Twenty-Third Publications. "As Martin Marty has noted, Catholic fundamentalists may overlook-of course, without necessarily denying-the big "fundamentals" such as the Trinity. They will instead "select items that will 'stand out,' such as Mass in Latin, opposition to women priests, optional clerical celibacy, or support for dismissals of 'artificial birth control.'""
55.Jump up ^ Richard P. McBrien. The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism. HarperCollins. "There are also fundamentalist communities ranging from the Lefebvre schism within the Catholic Church to movements of a dubious spirituality or to unapproved religious communities."
56.Jump up ^ Gerald A. Arbuckle. Violence, Society, and the Church: A Cultural Approach. Liturgical Press. p. 208. "Catholic fundamentalists belong to a particularly aggressive form of restorationism noted for...Concern for accidentals, not for the substance of issues, e.g., the Lefebvre sect stresses Latin for the Mass, failing to see that this does not pertain to authentic tradition. Attempts by fundamentalists groups, e.g., Opus Dei, to infiltrate governmental structures of the Church in order to obtain legitimacy for their views and to impose them on the whole Church."
57.Jump up ^ Brennan Hill, Paul F. Knitter, William Madges. Faith, Religion & Theology: A Contemporary Introduction. Twenty-Third Publications. "In fundamentalists circles, both Catholic and Protestant, God is often presented more as a God of judgement and punishment than as a God of love and mercy."
58.Jump up ^ http://www.aclu.org/religion-belief/victory-challenge-intelligent-design
59.Jump up ^ Parent, Mark (1998). Spirit Scapes: Mapping the Spiritual & Scientific Terrain at the Dawn of the New Millennium. Wood Lake Publishing Inc. p. 161. ISBN 9781770642959. Retrieved 2013-07-22. "By the beginning of the 1930s [...] fundamentalism appeared to be in disarray everywhere. Scholarly studies sprang up which claimed that fundamentalism was the last gasp of a dying religious order that was quickly vanishing."
60.Jump up ^ Hankins, Barry (2008). "'We're All Evangelicals Now': The Existential and Backward Historiography of Twentieth-Century Evangelicalism". In Harper, Keith. American Denominational History: Perspectives on the Past, Prospects for the Future. Religion & American Culture 68. University of Alabama Press. p. 196. ISBN 9780817355128. Retrieved 2013-07-22. "[...] in 1970 [...] Ernest Shandeen's The Roots of Fundamentalism [...] shifted the interpretation away from the view that fundamentalism was a last-gasp attempt to preserve a dying way of life."
61.Jump up ^ "Correct Churches". WELS Topical Q&A. Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod. Archived from the original on 27 Sep 2009. Retrieved 29 Jan 2015.
62.Jump up ^ What is the Lutheran Confessional Church?, by Lutheran Confessional Church
External links[edit]
 Wikimedia Commons has media related to Christian fundamentalism.
 Wikiquote has quotations related to: Fundamentalist Christianity
A. C. Dixon, Chicago Liberals and the Fundamentals by Gerald L. Priest
Christian Fundamentalism and the Media
Earliest Written Version of The Five Essentials
Fundamentalism Profile
The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth Online version of "The Fundamentals", not complete at 2011-07-26.
WELS Topical Q&A: Essential Christian Doctrine (A Confessional Lutheran perspective)



[hide]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Christianity


Jesus
Christ ·
 Jesus in Christianity ·
 Virgin birth ·
 Crucifixion ·
 Resurrection ·
 Son of God
 
Stained glass at St John's Ashfield, illustrating Jesus' description of himself, "I am the Good Shepherd", from the Gospel of John, chapter 10, verse 11.


Foundations
Church ·
 Creed ·
 Gospel ·
 New Covenant
 

Bible
Books ·
 Canon ·
 Old Testament ·
 New Testament
 

Theology
God ·
 Trinity  (Father ·
 Son ·
 Holy Spirit)
   ·
 Apologetics ·
 Baptism ·
 Catholicism ·
 Christology ·
 History of theology ·
 Mission ·
 Salvation
 


History and
tradition

Mary ·
 Apostles ·
 Peter ·
 Paul ·
 Fathers ·
 Early ·
 Constantine ·
 Ecumenical councils ·
 Augustine ·
 East–West Schism ·
 Crusades ·
 Aquinas ·
 Protestant Reformation ·
 Luther
 


Denominations
 and movements
 (List)




Western

Adventist ·
 Anabaptist ·
 Anglican ·
 Baptist ·
 Calvinist ·
 Charismatic ·
 Evangelical ·
 Holiness ·
 Lutheran ·
 Methodist ·
 Pentecostal ·
 Protestant ·
 Roman Catholic
 


Eastern

Eastern Orthodox ·
 Eastern Catholic ·
 Oriental Orthodox (Miaphysite) ·
 Assyrian Church of the East ("Nestorian")
 


Nontrinitarian

Jehovah's Witnesses ·
 Latter Day Saint movement ·
 Oneness Pentecostalism
 


Related topics
Art ·
 Criticism ·
 Ecumenism ·
 Liturgy ·
 Music ·
 Other religions ·
 Prayer ·
 Sermon ·
 Symbolism
 

CategoryCategory ·
 Portal icon Christianity portal ·
 WikiProjectWikiProject
 

  



Categories: Anti-Catholicism
Christian fundamentalism
Christian theological movements
Protestantism
Christian new religious movements







Navigation menu




Create account
Log in




Article

Talk












Read

Edit

View history

























Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
العربية
Català
Deutsch
Español
Esperanto
한국어
Bahasa Indonesia
Italiano
Latina
Lietuvių
Nederlands
日本語
Norsk nynorsk
Polski
Português
Српски / srpski
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Svenska
తెలుగు
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 18 April 2015, at 02:32.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
    
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_fundamentalism















Christian fundamentalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

For the political movement, see Christian right.
Part of a series on
Christianity
Jesus depicted as the Good Shepherd



Jesus ·
 Christ
 [show]











Bible ·
 Foundations
 [show]














Theology[show]

























History ·
 Tradition
 [show]























Related topics[show]




















Denominations ·
 Groups
 [show]









































Christian cross Christianity portal
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Christian fundamentalism began in the late 19th- and early 20th-century among British and American Protestants[1][2] as a reaction to theological liberalism and cultural modernism. Fundamentalists argued that 19th century modernist theologians had misinterpreted or rejected certain doctrines, especially biblical inerrancy, that they viewed as the fundamentals of Christian faith.[3] A few scholars regard Catholics who reject modern theology in favor of more traditional doctrines as fundamentalists.[4] Scholars debate how much the terms "evangelical" and "fundamentalist" are synonymous.[5]
Interpretations of the fundamentalist movement have changed over time.[6] Fundamentalism is a movement manifested in various denominations with various theologies, rather than a single denomination or systematic theology. It became active in the 1910s after the release of the Fundamentals, a twelve-volume set of essays, apologetic and polemic, written by conservative Protestant theologians to defend what they saw as Protestant orthodoxy. The movement became more organized in the 1920s within U.S. Protestant churches, especially Baptist and Presbyterian. Many such churches adopted a "fighting style" and combined Princeton theology with Dispensationalism.[2] Since 1930, many fundamentalist churches in North America and around the world have been represented by the Independent Fundamental Churches of America (renamed IFCA International in 1996), which holds to biblical inerrancy, the virgin birth of Jesus, substitutionary atonement, the literal resurrection of Christ, and the Second Coming of Christ, among other doctrines.



Contents  [hide]
1 Terminology
2 Origins 2.1 Evangelicalism
2.2 Dispensationalism
2.3 Princeton Theology (biblical inerrancy)
2.4 The Fundamentals and modernism
3 Changing interpretations
4 In North America 4.1 In the United States 4.1.1 Evolution
4.1.2 Christian right
4.1.3 Neo-evangelicalism
4.2 In Canada
5 Catholic fundamentalism
6 Criticism
7 See also
8 Bibliography 8.1 Primary sources
9 References
10 External links

Terminology[edit]
The term fundamentalism was coined by Baptist editor Curtis Lee Laws in 1920 to designate Christians who were ready "to do battle royal for the Fundamentals". The term was quickly adopted by all sides. Laws borrowed it from the title of a series of essays published between 1910 and 1915 called The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth. The term "Fundamentalism" entered the English language in 1922, and is often capitalized when referring to the religious movement.[1]
The term fundamentalist is controversial in the 21st century, as it can carry the connotation of religious extremism, even though it was coined by movement leaders. Some who hold these beliefs reject the label of "fundamentalism", seeing it as too pejorative,[7] while to others it has become a banner of pride. Such Christians prefer to use the term fundamental, as opposed to fundamentalist (e.g., Independent Fundamental Baptist and Independent Fundamental Churches of America).[8] The term is sometimes confused with Christian legalism.[9][10]
Origins[edit]
Fundamentalism came from multiple streams in British and American theology of the 19th century.[11]
Evangelicalism[edit]
The first important stream was Evangelicalism as it emerged in the revivals of the First Great Awakening and Second Great Awakening in America and the Methodism movement in England in the period 1730-1840. They in turn had been influenced by the Pietism movement in Germany. Church historian Randall Balmer explains that:
"Evangelicalism itself, I believe, is a quintessentially North American phenomenon, deriving as it did from the confluence of Pietism, Presbyterianism, and the vestiges of Puritanism. Evangelicalism picked up the peculiar characteristics from each strain – warmhearted spirituality from the Pietists (for instance), doctrinal precisionism from the Presbyterians, and individualistic introspection from the Puritans – even as the North American context itself has profoundly shaped the various manifestations of evangelicalism: fundamentalism, neo-evangelicalism, the holiness movement, Pentecostalism, the charismatic movement, and various forms of African-American and Hispanic evangelicalism.[12]
Dispensationalism[edit]
A second stream was Dispensationalism, a new interpretation of the Bible developed in the 1830s in England. Darby's ideas were disseminated by the notes and commentaries in the widely used Scofield Reference Bible, published in 1909. Dispensationalism was a millenarian theory that divided all of time into seven different stages, called "dispensations", which were seen as stages of God's revelation. At the end of each stage, according to this theory, God punished humanity for having been found wanting in God's testing. Secularism, liberalism, and immorality in the 1920s were believed to be signs that humanity had again failed God's testing. Dispensationalists believed that the world was on the verge of the last stage, where a final battle will take place at Armageddon, followed by Christ's return and 1,000 year reign.[13]
Princeton Theology (biblical inerrancy)[edit]
Main article: Princeton Theology
See also: Biblical inerrancy and Biblical literalism
A third stream was Princeton Theology, which responded to higher criticism of the Bible by developing from the 1840s to 1920 the doctrine of inerrancy. This doctrine, also called biblical inerrancy, stated that the Bible was divinely inspired, religiously authoritative, and without error.[14][15] The Princeton Seminary professor of Theology Charles Hodge insisted that the Bible was inerrant because God dictated its contents to the men who wrote it. Princeton theologians believed that the Bible should be read differently from any other historical document, and also that Christian modernism and liberalism led people to hell just like non-Christian religions.[13]
Biblical inerrancy was a particularly significant rallying point for fundamentalists.[16] This approach to the Bible is associated with conservative evangelical hermeneutical approaches to Scripture ranging from the historical-grammatical method to biblical literalism.[17]
The Fundamentals and modernism[edit]
Main article: The Fundamentals
A fourth stream—the immediate spark—was the 12-volume study The Fundamentals, published 1910-1915.[18] Sponsors subsidized the free distribution of over three million individual volumes to clergy, laymen and libraries. This version[19] stressed several core beliefs, including:
The inerrancy of the Bible
The literal nature of the Biblical accounts, especially regarding Christ's miracles and the Creation account in Genesis
The Virgin Birth of Christ
The bodily resurrection and physical return of Christ
The substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross
Like Princeton Theology, The Fundamentals reflected growing opposition among many evangelical Christians towards higher criticism of the Bible and modernism.
Changing interpretations[edit]
The interpretations given the fundamentalist movement have changed over time, with most older interpretations being based on the concepts of social displacement or cultural lag.[6] Some in the 1930s, including H. Richard Niebuhr, understood the conflict between fundamentalism and modernism to be part of a broader social conflict between the cities and the country.[6] In this view the fundamentalists were country and small-town dwellers who were reacting against the progressivism of city dwellers.[6] Fundamentalism was seen as a form of anti-intellectualism during the 1950s; in the early 1960s Richard Hofstadter interpreted it in terms of status anxiety.[6]
Beginning in the late 1960s the movement began to be seen as "a bona fide religious, theological and even intellectual movement in its own right."[6] Instead of interpreting fundamentalism as a simple anti-intellectualism, Paul Carter argued that "fundamentalists were simply intellectual in a way different than their opponents."[6] Moving into the 1970s, Earnest R. Sandeen saw fundamentalism as arising from the confluence of Princeton Theology and millennialism.[6]
George Marsden defined fundamentalism as "militantly anti-modernist Protestant evangelicalism" in his 1980 work Fundamentalism and American Culture.[6] "Militant" in this sense does not mean "violent", it means "aggressively active in a cause".[20] Marsden saw fundamentalism arising from a number of preexisting evangelical movements that responded to various perceived threats by joining forces.[6] He argued that Christian fundamentalists were American evangelical Christians who in the 20th century opposed "both modernism in theology and the cultural changes that modernism endorsed. Militant opposition to modernism was what most clearly set off fundamentalism."[21] Others viewing militancy as a core characteristic of the fundamentalist movement include Philip Melling, Ung Kyu Pak and Ronald Witherup.[22][23][24] Donald McKim and David Wright (1992) argue that "in the 1920s, militant conservatives (fundamentalists) united to mount a conservative counter-offensive. Fundamentalists sought to rescue their denominations from the growth of modernism at home."[25]
According to Marsden, recent scholars differentiate "fundamentalists" from "evangelicals" by arguing the former were more militant and less willing to collaborate with groups considered "modernist" in theology. In the 1940s the more moderate faction of fundamentalists maintained the same theology but began calling themselves "evangelicals" to stress their less militant position.[26] Roger Olson (2007) identifies a more moderate faction of fundamentalists, which he calls "postfundamentalist", and says "most postfundamentalist evangelicals do not wish to be called fundamentalists, even though their basic theological orientation is not very different." According to Olson, a key event was the formation of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) in 1942.[27] Barry Hankins (2008) has a similar view, saying "beginning in the 1940s....militant and separatist evangelicals came to be called fundamentalists, while culturally engaged and non-militant evangelicals were supposed to be called evangelicals."[28]
Timothy Weber views fundamentalism as "a rather distinctive modern reaction to religious, social and intellectual changes of the late 1800s and early 1900s, a reaction that eventually took on a life of its own and changed significantly over time."[6]
In North America[edit]
Fundamentalist movements existed in most North American Protestant denominations by 1919 following attacks on modernist theology in Presbyterian and Baptist denominations. Fundamentalism was especially controversial among Presbyterians.[29]
In the United States[edit]
 Wikisource has original text related to this article:
The Doctrinal Statement of the World Conference on Christian Fundamentals 1919

A leading organizer of the Fundamentalist campaign against modernism in the United States was William Bell Riley, a Northern Baptist based in Minneapolis, where his Northwestern Bible and Missionary Training School (1902), Northwestern Evangelical Seminary (1935), and Northwestern College (1944) produced thousands of graduates. At a large conference in Philadelphia in 1919, Riley created the World Christian Fundamentals Association (WCFA), which became the chief interdenominational fundamentalist organization in the 1920s. Although the fundamentalist drive of the 1920s to take control of the major Protestant denominations failed at the national level, the network of churches and missions fostered by Riley shows the movement was growing in strength, especially in the U.S. South. Both rural and urban in character, the flourishing movement acted as a denominational surrogate and fostered a militant evangelical Christian orthodoxy. Riley was president of WCFA until 1929, after which the WFCA faded in importance.[30] The Independent Fundamental Churches of America became a leading association of U.S. fundamentalist churches upon its founding in 1930.



 J. Gresham Machen Memorial Hall
Much of the enthusiasm for mobilizing fundamentalism came from Christian seminaries and Christian "Bible colleges" in the United States. Two leading fundamentalist seminaries were the Dispensationalist Dallas Theological Seminary, founded in 1924 by Lewis Sperry Chafer, and the Reformed Westminster Theological Seminary, formed in 1929 under the leadership and funding of former Princeton Theological Seminary professor J. Gresham Machen.[31] Many Bible colleges were modeled after the Moody Bible Institute in Chicago. Dwight Moody was influential in preaching the imminence of the Kingdom of God that was so important to Dispensationalism.[32] Bible colleges prepared ministers who lacked college or seminary experience with intense study of the Bible, often using the Scofield Reference Bible of 1909, a King James Version Bible with detailed notes interpreting passages from a Dispensational perspective.
Although U.S. fundamentalism began in the North, the movement's greatest popular strength was in the South, especially among Southern Baptists, where individuals (and sometimes entire churches) left the convention to join other Baptist denominations perceived as "more conservative" or to join the Independent Baptist movement. By the late 1920s the national media had identified it with the South, largely ignoring manifestations elsewhere.[33] By the 1970s Christian fundamentalism was deeply entrenched and concentrated in the U.S. South. In 1972–1980 General Social Surveys, 65 percent of respondents from the "East South Central" region (comprising Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Alabama) self-identified as fundamentalist. The share of fundamentalists was at or near 50 percent in "West South Central" (Texas to Arkansas) and "South Atlantic" (Florida to Maryland), and at 25 percent or below elsewhere in the country, with the low of nine percent in New England. The pattern persisted into the 21st century; in 2006–2010 surveys, the average share of fundamentalists in the East South Central Region stood at 58 percent, while, in New England, it climbed slightly to 13 percent.[34]
Evolution[edit]
Many fundamentalists in the 1920s devoted themselves to fighting the teaching of evolution in the nation's schools and colleges, especially by passing state laws that affected public schools. William Bell Riley took the initiative in the 1925 Scopes Trial to bring in famed politician William Jennings Bryan as an assistant to the local prosecutor, who helped attract national media attention to the trial. In the half century after the Scopes Trial, fundamentalists had little success in shaping government policy, and generally were defeated in their efforts to reshape the mainline denominations, which refused to join fundamentalist attacks on evolution.[13] Particularly after the Scopes Trial, liberals saw a division between Christians in favor of the teaching of evolution, whom they viewed as educated and tolerant, and Christians against evolution, whom they viewed as narrow-minded, tribal, obscurantist.[35]
However Edwards (2000) challenges the consensus view among scholars that in the wake of the Scopes trial, fundamentalism retreated into the political and cultural background, a viewpoint evidenced in the movie "Inherit the Wind" and the majority of contemporary historical accounts. Rather, he argues, the cause of fundamentalism's retreat was the death of its leader, Bryan. Most fundamentalists saw the trial as a victory and not a defeat, but Bryan's death soon after created a leadership void that no other fundamentalist leader could fill. Bryan, unlike the other leaders, brought name recognition, respectability, and the ability to forge a broad-based coalition of fundamentalist religious groups to argue for the anti-evolutionist position.[36]
Gatewood (1969) analyzes the transition from the anti-evolution crusade of the 1920s to the creation science movement of the 1960s. Despite some similarities between these two causes, the creation science movement represented a shift from religious to scientific objections to Darwin's theory. Creation science also differed in terms of popular leadership, rhetorical tone, and sectional focus. It lacked a prestigious leader like Bryan, utilized scientific rather than religious rhetoric, and was a product of California and Michigan instead of the South.[37]
Webb (1991) traces the political and legal struggles between strict creationists and Darwinists to influence the extent to which evolution would be taught as science in Arizona and California schools. After Scopes was convicted, creationists throughout the United States sought similar antievolution laws for their states. These included Reverends R. S. Beal and Aubrey L. Moore in Arizona and members of the Creation Research Society in California, all supported by distinguished laymen. They sought to ban evolution as a topic for study, or at least relegate it to the status of unproven theory perhaps taught alongside the biblical version of creation. Educators, scientists, and other distinguished laymen favored evolution. This struggle occurred later in the Southwest than in other US areas and persisted through the Sputnik era.[38]
In recent times, the courts have heard cases on whether or not the Book of Genesis's creation account should be taught in science classrooms alongside evolution, most notably in the 2005 federal court case Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.[39] Creationism was presented under the banner of intelligent design, with the book Of Pandas and People being its textbook. The trial ended with the judge deciding that teaching intelligent design in a science class was unconstitutional as it was a religious belief and not science.[40]
The original fundamentalist movement divided along clearly defined lines within conservative evangelical Protestantism as issues progressed. Many groupings, large and small, were produced by this schism. Neo-evangelicalism, Reformed and Lutheran Confessionalism, the Heritage movement, and Paleo-Orthodoxy have all developed distinct identities, but none of them acknowledge any more than an historical overlap with the fundamentalist movement, and the term is seldom used of them. The broader term "evangelical" includes fundamentalists as well as people with similar or identical religious beliefs who do not engage the outside challenge to the Bible as actively.[41]
Christian right[edit]
Main article: Christian right
The latter half of the twentieth century witnessed a surge of interest in organized political activism by U.S. fundamentalists. Dispensational fundamentalists viewed the 1948 establishment of the state of Israel as an important sign of the fulfillment of biblical prophecy, and support for Israel became the centerpiece of their approach to U.S. foreign policy.[42] United States Supreme Court decisions also ignited fundamentalists' interest in organized politics, particularly Engel v. Vitale in 1962, which prohibited state-sanctioned prayer in public schools, and Abington School District v. Schempp in 1963, which prohibited mandatory Bible reading in public schools.[43] By the time Ronald Reagan ran for the presidency in 1980, fundamentalist preachers, like the prohibitionist ministers of the early 20th century, were organizing their congregations to vote for supportive candidates.[44]
Leaders of the newly political fundamentalism included Rob Grant and Jerry Falwell. Beginning with Grant's American Christian Cause in 1974, Christian Voice throughout the 1970s and Falwell's Moral Majority in the 1980s, the Christian Right began to have a major impact on American politics. In the 1980s and 1990s, the Christian Right was influencing elections and policy with groups such as the Family Research Council (founded 1981 by James Dobson) and the Christian Coalition (formed in 1989 by Pat Robertson) helping conservative politicians, especially Republicans to win state and national elections.[45]
Neo-evangelicalism[edit]
American evangelist Billy Graham came from a fundamentalist background, but parted company with that movement because of his choice, early in his ministry (1950s), to cooperate with other Christians.[46] Graham represents a movement that arose within fundamentalism, but has increasingly become distinct from it, known as neo-evangelicalism or New Evangelicalism (a term coined by Harold J. Ockenga, the "Father of New Evangelicalism").
In Canada[edit]
In Canada, Fundamentalism was less of a force,[47] but it had an aggressive leader in English-born Thomas Todhunter Shields (1873–1955), who led 80 churches out of the Baptist federation in Ontario in 1927 and formed the Union of regular Baptist churches of Ontario and Quebec. He was affiliated with the Baptist Bible Union, based in the United States. His newspaper, The Gospel Witness, reached 30,000 subscribers in 16 countries, giving him an international reputation. He was one of the founders of the international Council of Christian Churches.[48]
Oswald J. Smith (1889–1986), reared in rural Ontario and educated at Moody Church in Chicago, set up The Peoples Church in Toronto in 1928. A dynamic preacher and leader in Canadian fundamentalism, Smith wrote 35 books and engaged in missionary work worldwide. The reverend Billy Graham called him, "the greatest combination pastor, hymn writer, missionary statesman, an evangelist of our time".[49]
Catholic fundamentalism[edit]
Some scholars describe certain Catholics as fundamentalists. Such Catholics believe in a literal interpretation of Vatican declarations, particularly those pronounced by the Pope,[50][51][52] and believe that individuals who do not agree with the magisterium are condemned by God.[53] Martin E. Marty described Catholic fundamentalists as advocating mass in Latin and mandatory clerical celibacy while opposing ordination of women priests and dismissals of artificial birth control.[54] The Society of St. Pius X, a product of Marcel Lefebvre, is cited as a stronghold of Catholic fundamentalism.[55][56]
Criticism[edit]
Fundamentalists have been criticized for presenting God "more as a God of judgement and punishment than as a God of love and mercy".[57] Groups such as the ACLU have brought suit against fundamentalist attempts to teach creationism in public schools, as in the federal court case of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.[58]
In the 1930s fundamentalism was viewed by many as a "last gasp" vestige of something in the past.[59] More recent scholarship has shifted away from that view.[6][60]
Confessional Lutheran churches reject the fundamentalist position and believe that all Biblical teachings are essential:

Are there some "non-essential" or "non-fundamental" teachings about which we can safely disagree? If they believe the answer is "yes," that in itself is already reason for alarm. The Bible teaches that no teachings of the Bible can safely be set aside. "Agreeing to disagree" is really not God-pleasing agreement.[61]
As, according to Lutheran apologists, Martin Luther said:

The doctrine is not ours, but God's, and we are called to be his servants. Therefore we cannot waver or change the smallest point of doctrine.[62]
See also[edit]
Bible believer
British Conservative Evangelicalism
Christian eschatological differences
Christian Reconstructionism
Christian right
Christian Zionism
Dominionism
Reformed Fundamentalism
Bibliography[edit]
Almond, Gabriel A., R. Scott Appleby, and Emmanuel Sivan, eds. (2003). Strong Religion: The Rise of Fundamentalisms around the World and text search
Armstrong, Karen (2001). The Battle for God. New York: Ballantine Books. ISBN 0-345-39169-1.
Ballmer, Randall (2nd ed 2004). Encyclopedia of Evangelicalism
Ballmer, Randall (2010). The Making of Evangelicalism: From Revivalism to Politics and Beyond, 120pp
Ballmer, Randall (2000). Blessed Assurance: A History of Evangelicalism in America
Beale, David O. (1986). In Pursuit of Purity: American Fundamentalism Since 1850. Greenville, SC: Bob Jones University (Unusual Publications). ISBN 0-89084-350-3.
Bebbington, David W. (1990). "Baptists and Fundamentalists in Inter-War Britain." In Keith Robbins, ed. Protestant Evangelicalism: Britain, Ireland, Germany and America c.1750-c.1950. Studies in Church History subsidia 7, 297–326. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, ISBN 0-631-17818-X.
Bebbington, David W. (1993). "Martyrs for the Truth: Fundamentalists in Britain." In Diana Wood, ed. Martyrs and Martyrologies, Studies in Church History Vol. 30, 417–451. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, ISBN 0-631-18868-1.
Barr, James (1977). Fundamentalism. London: SCM Press. ISBN 0-334-00503-5.
Caplan, Lionel (1987). Studies in Religious Fundamentalism. London: The MacMillan Press, ISBN 0-88706-518-X.
Carpenter, Joel A. (1999). Revive Us Again: The Reawakening of American Fundamentalism. Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-512907-5.
Cole, Stewart Grant (1931). The History of Fundamentalism, Greenwood Press ISBN 0-8371-5683-1.
Doner, Colonel V. (2012). Christian Jihad: Neo-Fundamentalists and the Polarization of America, Samizdat Creative
Elliott, David R. (1993). "Knowing No Borders: Canadian Contributions to Fundamentalism." In George A. Rawlyk and Mark A. Noll, eds. Amazing Grace: Evangelicalism in Australia, Britain, Canada and the United States. Grand Rapids: Baker. 349–374, ISBN 0-7735-1214-4.
Dollar, George W. (1973). A History of Fundamentalism in America. Greenville: Bob Jones University Press.
Hankins, Barry. (2008). American Evangelicals: A Contemporary History of A Mainstream Religious Movement, scholarly history excerpt and text search
Harris, Harriet A. (1998). Fundamentalism and Evangelicals. Oxford University. ISBN 0-19-826960-9.
Hart, D. G. (1998). "The Tie that Divides: Presbyterian Ecumenism, Fundamentalism and the History of Twentieth-Century American Protestantism." Westminster Theological Journal 60, 85–107.
Hughes, Richard Thomas (1988). The American quest for the primitive church 257pp excerpt and text search
Laats, Adam (Feb. 2010). "Forging a Fundamentalist 'One Best System': Struggles over Curriculum and Educational Philosophy for Christian Day Schools, 1970–1989," History of Education Quarterly, 50 (Feb. 2010), 55–83.
Longfield, Bradley J. (1991). The Presbyterian Controversy. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-508674-0.
Marsden, George M. (1995). "Fundamentalism as an American Phenomenon." In D. G. Hart, ed. Reckoning with the Past, 303–321. Grand Rapids: Baker.
Marsden; George M. (1980). Fundamentalism and American Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-502758-2; the standard scholarly history (by a fundamentalist); excerpt and text search
Marsden, George M. (1991). Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism excerpt and text search
McCune, Rolland D. (1998). "The Formation of New Evangelicalism (Part One): Historical and Theological Antecedents." Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal, 3, 3–34.
McLachlan, Douglas R. (1993). Reclaiming Authentic Fundamentalism. Independence, Mo.: American Association of Christian Schools. ISBN 0-918407-02-8.
Noll, Mark (1992). A History of Christianity in the United States and Canada.. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 311–389. ISBN 0-8028-0651-1.
Noll, Mark A., David W. Bebbington and George A. Rawlyk eds. (1994). Evangelicalism: Comparative Studies of Popular Protestantism in North America, the British Isles and Beyond, 1700–1990.
Rawlyk, George A., and Mark A. Noll, eds. (1993). Amazing Grace: Evangelicalism in Australia, Britain, Canada, and the United States.
Rennie, Ian S. (1994). "Fundamentalism and the Varieties of North Atlantic Evangelicalism." in Mark A. Noll, David W. Bebbington and George A. Rawlyk eds. Evangelicalism: Comparative Studies of Popular Protestantism in North America, the British Isles and Beyond, 1700–1990. New York: Oxford University Press. 333–364, ISBN 0-19-508362-8.
Russell, C. Allyn (1976), Voices of American Fundamentalism: Seven Biographical Studies, Philadelphia: Westminster Press, ISBN 0-664-20814-2
Ruthven, Malise (2007). Fundamentalism: A Very Short Introduction excerpt and text search
Sandeen, Ernest Robert (1970). The Roots of Fundamentalism: British and American Millenarianism, 1800–1930, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, ISBN 0-226-73467-6
Seat, Leroy (2007). Fed Up with Fundamentalism: A Historical, Theological, and Personal Appraisal of Christian Fundamentalism. Liberty, MO: 4-L Publications. ISBN 978-1-59526-859-4
Stackhouse, John G. (1993). Canadian Evangelicalism in the Twentieth Century
Trollinger, William V. (1991). God's Empire: William Bell Riley and Midwestern Fundamentalism excerpts and text search
Utzinger, J. Michael (2006). Yet Saints Their Watch Are Keeping: Fundamentalists, Modernists, and the Development of Evangelical Ecclesiology, 1887-1937, Macon: Mercer University Press, ISBN 0-86554-902-8
Witherup, Ronald D. S.S. (2001). Biblical Fundamentalism: What Every Catholic Should Know, 101pp excerpt and text search
Young, F. Lionel, III, (2005). "To the Right of Billy Graham: John R. Rice's 1957 Crusade Against New Evangelicalism and the End of the Fundamentalist-Evangelical Coalition." Th. M. Thesis, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.
Primary sources[edit]
Hankins, Barr, ed. (2008). Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism: A Documentary Reader excerpt and text search
Torrey, R. A., Dixon, A. C., et al. (eds.) (1917). The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth partial version at web.archive.org. Accessed 2011-07-26.
Trollinger, William Vance, Jr., ed. (1995). The Antievolution Pamphlets of William Bell Riley. (Creationism in Twentieth-Century America: A Ten-Volume Anthology of Documents, 1903-1961. Vol. 4.) New York: Garland, 221 pp. excerpt and text search
References[edit]
1.^ Jump up to: a b Fundamentalism at merriam-webster.com. Accessed 2011-07-28.
2.^ Jump up to: a b Marsden (1980), pp. 55-62, 118-23.
3.Jump up ^ Sandeen (1970), p. 6
4.Jump up ^ Hill, Brennan; Knitter, Paul F.; Madges, William. Faith, Religion & Theology: A Contemporary Introduction. Twenty-Third Publications. "Catholic fundamentalists, like their Protestant counterparts, fear that the church has abandoned the unchanging truth of past tradition for the evolving speculations of modern theology. They fear that Christian societies have replaced systems of absolute moral norms with subjective decision making and relativism. Like Protestant fundamentalists, Catholic fundamentalists propose a worldview that is rigorous and clear cut."
5.Jump up ^ Roger E. Olson (2004). The Westminster Handbook to Evangelical Theology. Westminster John Knox Press. pp. 3–6. summarizes the debate.
6.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j k l Reid, D. G., Linder, R. D., Shelley, B. L., & Stout, H. S. (1990). In Dictionary of Christianity in America. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. Entry on Fundamentalism
7.Jump up ^ Robbins, Dale A. (1995). What is a Fundamentalist Christian?. Grass Valley, California: Victorious Publications. Retrieved 2009-12-01.
8.Jump up ^ Horton, Ron. "Christian Education at Bob Jones University". Greenville, South Carolina: Bob Jones University. Retrieved 2009-12-01.
9.Jump up ^ Wilson, William P. "Legalism and the Authority of Scripture". Retrieved 19 March 2010.
10.Jump up ^ Morton, Timothy S. "From Liberty to Legalism - A Candid Study of Legalism, "Pharisees," and Christian Liberty". Retrieved 19 March 2010.
11.Jump up ^ Sandeen (1970), ch 1
12.Jump up ^ Randall Balmer (2002). The Encyclopedia of Evangelicalism. Westminster John Knox Press. pp. vii–viii.
13.^ Jump up to: a b c Kee, Howard Clark; Emily Albu; Carter Lindberg; J. William Frost; Dana L. Robert (1998). Christianity: A Social and Cultural History. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. p. 484. ISBN 0-13-578071-3.
14.Jump up ^ Marsden (1980), pp 109-118
15.Jump up ^ Sandeen (1970) pp 103-31
16.Jump up ^ Marsden, George M. (1995). Reforming Fundamentalism: Fuller Seminary and the New Evangelicalism. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. p. 118.
17.Jump up ^ Beyond Biblical Literalism and Inerrancy: Conservative Protestants and the Hermeneutic Interpretation of Scripture, John Bartkowski, Sociology of Religion, 57, 1996.
18.Jump up ^ Sandeen (1970) pp 188-207
19.Jump up ^ The Fundamentals A Testimony to the Truth
20.Jump up ^ "Militant" in Merriam Webster Third Unabridged Dictionary (1961) which cites "militant suffragist" and "militant trade unionism" as example.
21.Jump up ^ Marsden (1980), Fundamentalism and American Culture p. 4
22.Jump up ^ Philip H. Melling, Fundamentalism in America: millennialism, identity and militant religion (1999). As another scholar points out, "One of the major distinctives of fundamentalism is militancy."
23.Jump up ^ Ung Kyu Pak, Millennialism in the Korean Protestant Church (2005) p. 211.
24.Jump up ^ Ronald D. Witherup, a Catholic scholar, says: "Essentially, fundamentalists see themselves as defending authentic Christian religion... The militant aspect helps to explain the desire of fundamentalists to become active in political change." Ronald D. Witherup, Biblical Fundamentalism: What Every Catholic Should Know (2001) p 2
25.Jump up ^ Donald K. McKim and David F. Wright, Encyclopedia of the Reformed faith (1992) p. 148
26.Jump up ^ George M. Marsden (1995). Reforming Fundamentalism: Fuller Seminary and the New Evangelicalism. Wm. B. Eerdmans. p. xi.
27.Jump up ^ Roger E. Olson, Pocket History of Evangelical Theology (2007) p. 12
28.Jump up ^ Barry Hankins, Francis Schaeffer and the shaping of Evangelical America (2008) p 233
29.Jump up ^ Marsden, George M. (1995). Reforming Fundamentalism: Fuller Seminary and the New Evangelicalism. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. pp. 109–118.
30.Jump up ^ William Vance Trollinger, Jr. "Riley's Empire: Northwestern Bible School and Fundamentalism in the Upper Midwest". Church History 1988 57(2): 197-212. 0009-6407
31.Jump up ^ Marsden, George M. (1995). Reforming Fundamentalism: Fuller Seminary and the New Evangelicalism. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. p. 33.
32.Jump up ^ Kee, Howard Clark; Emily Albu; Carter Lindberg; J. William Frost; Dana L. Robert (1998). Christianity: A Social and Cultural History. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. p. 484.
33.Jump up ^ Mary Beth Swetnam Mathews, Rethinking Zion: how the print media placed fundamentalism in the South (2006) page xi
34.Jump up ^ "General Social Survey database".
35.Jump up ^ David Goetz, "The Monkey Trial". Christian History 1997 16(3): 10-18. 0891-9666; Burton W. Folsom, Jr. "The Scopes Trial Reconsidered." Continuity 1988 (12): 103-127. 0277-1446, by a leading conservative scholar
36.Jump up ^ Mark Edwards, "Rethinking the Failure of Fundamentalist Political Antievolutionism after 1925". Fides Et Historia 2000 32(2): 89-106. 0884-5379
37.Jump up ^ Willard B. Gatewood, Jr., ed. Controversy in the Twenties: Fundamentalism, Modernism, & Evolution (1969)
38.Jump up ^ George E. Webb, "The Evolution Controversy in Arizona and California: From the 1920s to the 1980s." Journal of the Southwest 1991 33(2): 133-150. 0894-8410. See also Christopher K. Curtis, "Mississippi's Anti-Evolution Law of 1926." Journal Of Mississippi History 1986 48(1): 15-29.
39.Jump up ^ "Kitzmiller v. Dover: Intelligent Design on Trial". National Center for Science Education. October 17, 2008. Retrieved 21 June 2011.
40.Jump up ^ Wikisource:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District et al., H. Conclusion
41.Jump up ^ Harris, Harriet A. Fundamentalism and Evangelicals (2008) pp.39, 313.
42.Jump up ^ Aaron William Stone, Dispensationalism and United States foreign policy with Israel (2008) excerpt
43.Jump up ^ Bruce J. Dierenfield, The Battle over School Prayer (2007) p 236
44.Jump up ^ Oran Smith, The Rise of Baptist Republicanism (2000)
45.Jump up ^ Albert J. Menendez, Evangelicals at the Ballot Box (1996) pp 128-74
46.Jump up ^ Bob Jones University Drops Interracial Dating Ban | Christianity Today|A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction
47.Jump up ^ John G. Stackhouse, Canadian Evangelicalism in the Twentieth Century (1993)
48.Jump up ^ C. Allyn Russell, "Thomas Todhunter Shields: Canadian Fundamentalist," Foundations, 1981, Vol. 24 Issue 1, pp 15-31
49.Jump up ^ David R. Elliott, "Knowing No Borders: Canadian Contributions to American Fundamentalism," in George A. Rawlyk and Mark A. Noll, eds., Amazing Grace: Evangelicalism in Australia, Britain, Canada, and the United States (1993)
50.Jump up ^ Gerald A. Arbuckle. Violence, Society, and the Church: A Cultural Approach. Liturgical Press. p. 208.
51.Jump up ^ Richard P. McBrien. The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism. HarperCollins. "fundamentalism, Catholic, the Catholic forms of religious fundamentalism, including especially an unhistorical and literal reading not of the Bible but also of the official teachings of the Church."
52.Jump up ^ Brennan Hill, Paul F. Knitter, William Madges. Faith, Religion & Theology: A Contemporary Introduction. Twenty-Third Publications. "Catholic fundamentalism also has its distinctive traits. Whereas Protestant fundamentalists invest absolute authority in the literal interpretation of Scripture, fundamentalist Catholics invest absolute authority in the literal interpretation of Vatican declarations and in the figure of the pope. In the words of Catholic theologian Thomas O'Meara, "creeping infallibility," that is, the belief that everything said by the pope or a Vatican congregation is incapable of error, accomplishes for Catholic fundamentalists what the biblical page does for Protestant fundamentalists."
53.Jump up ^ Brennan Hill, Paul F. Knitter, William Madges. Faith, Religion & Theology: A Contemporary Introduction. Twenty-Third Publications. "Catholic fundamentalists, like Protestant fundamentalists, stress the need for an absolute external authority to guide the thinking and decision making of the individual. They do so because of the sinfulness of the human person. Left to his or her own devices, the individual, they feel, will generally make bad judgements. Consequently, individual freedom must be directed by the right authority. In the case of Catholic fundamentalism, this means literal adherence fully to past tradition, or who have difficulty assenting to every official statement of the hierarchical magisterium, are judged harshly. Such sinners, say fundamentalists, are condemned by God."
54.Jump up ^ Brennan Hill, Paul F. Knitter, William Madges. Faith, Religion & Theology: A Contemporary Introduction. Twenty-Third Publications. "As Martin Marty has noted, Catholic fundamentalists may overlook-of course, without necessarily denying-the big "fundamentals" such as the Trinity. They will instead "select items that will 'stand out,' such as Mass in Latin, opposition to women priests, optional clerical celibacy, or support for dismissals of 'artificial birth control.'""
55.Jump up ^ Richard P. McBrien. The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism. HarperCollins. "There are also fundamentalist communities ranging from the Lefebvre schism within the Catholic Church to movements of a dubious spirituality or to unapproved religious communities."
56.Jump up ^ Gerald A. Arbuckle. Violence, Society, and the Church: A Cultural Approach. Liturgical Press. p. 208. "Catholic fundamentalists belong to a particularly aggressive form of restorationism noted for...Concern for accidentals, not for the substance of issues, e.g., the Lefebvre sect stresses Latin for the Mass, failing to see that this does not pertain to authentic tradition. Attempts by fundamentalists groups, e.g., Opus Dei, to infiltrate governmental structures of the Church in order to obtain legitimacy for their views and to impose them on the whole Church."
57.Jump up ^ Brennan Hill, Paul F. Knitter, William Madges. Faith, Religion & Theology: A Contemporary Introduction. Twenty-Third Publications. "In fundamentalists circles, both Catholic and Protestant, God is often presented more as a God of judgement and punishment than as a God of love and mercy."
58.Jump up ^ http://www.aclu.org/religion-belief/victory-challenge-intelligent-design
59.Jump up ^ Parent, Mark (1998). Spirit Scapes: Mapping the Spiritual & Scientific Terrain at the Dawn of the New Millennium. Wood Lake Publishing Inc. p. 161. ISBN 9781770642959. Retrieved 2013-07-22. "By the beginning of the 1930s [...] fundamentalism appeared to be in disarray everywhere. Scholarly studies sprang up which claimed that fundamentalism was the last gasp of a dying religious order that was quickly vanishing."
60.Jump up ^ Hankins, Barry (2008). "'We're All Evangelicals Now': The Existential and Backward Historiography of Twentieth-Century Evangelicalism". In Harper, Keith. American Denominational History: Perspectives on the Past, Prospects for the Future. Religion & American Culture 68. University of Alabama Press. p. 196. ISBN 9780817355128. Retrieved 2013-07-22. "[...] in 1970 [...] Ernest Shandeen's The Roots of Fundamentalism [...] shifted the interpretation away from the view that fundamentalism was a last-gasp attempt to preserve a dying way of life."
61.Jump up ^ "Correct Churches". WELS Topical Q&A. Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod. Archived from the original on 27 Sep 2009. Retrieved 29 Jan 2015.
62.Jump up ^ What is the Lutheran Confessional Church?, by Lutheran Confessional Church
External links[edit]
 Wikimedia Commons has media related to Christian fundamentalism.
 Wikiquote has quotations related to: Fundamentalist Christianity
A. C. Dixon, Chicago Liberals and the Fundamentals by Gerald L. Priest
Christian Fundamentalism and the Media
Earliest Written Version of The Five Essentials
Fundamentalism Profile
The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth Online version of "The Fundamentals", not complete at 2011-07-26.
WELS Topical Q&A: Essential Christian Doctrine (A Confessional Lutheran perspective)



[hide]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Christianity


Jesus
Christ ·
 Jesus in Christianity ·
 Virgin birth ·
 Crucifixion ·
 Resurrection ·
 Son of God
 
Stained glass at St John's Ashfield, illustrating Jesus' description of himself, "I am the Good Shepherd", from the Gospel of John, chapter 10, verse 11.


Foundations
Church ·
 Creed ·
 Gospel ·
 New Covenant
 

Bible
Books ·
 Canon ·
 Old Testament ·
 New Testament
 

Theology
God ·
 Trinity  (Father ·
 Son ·
 Holy Spirit)
   ·
 Apologetics ·
 Baptism ·
 Catholicism ·
 Christology ·
 History of theology ·
 Mission ·
 Salvation
 


History and
tradition

Mary ·
 Apostles ·
 Peter ·
 Paul ·
 Fathers ·
 Early ·
 Constantine ·
 Ecumenical councils ·
 Augustine ·
 East–West Schism ·
 Crusades ·
 Aquinas ·
 Protestant Reformation ·
 Luther
 


Denominations
 and movements
 (List)




Western

Adventist ·
 Anabaptist ·
 Anglican ·
 Baptist ·
 Calvinist ·
 Charismatic ·
 Evangelical ·
 Holiness ·
 Lutheran ·
 Methodist ·
 Pentecostal ·
 Protestant ·
 Roman Catholic
 


Eastern

Eastern Orthodox ·
 Eastern Catholic ·
 Oriental Orthodox (Miaphysite) ·
 Assyrian Church of the East ("Nestorian")
 


Nontrinitarian

Jehovah's Witnesses ·
 Latter Day Saint movement ·
 Oneness Pentecostalism
 


Related topics
Art ·
 Criticism ·
 Ecumenism ·
 Liturgy ·
 Music ·
 Other religions ·
 Prayer ·
 Sermon ·
 Symbolism
 

CategoryCategory ·
 Portal icon Christianity portal ·
 WikiProjectWikiProject
 

  



Categories: Anti-Catholicism
Christian fundamentalism
Christian theological movements
Protestantism
Christian new religious movements







Navigation menu




Create account
Log in




Article

Talk












Read

Edit

View history

























Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
العربية
Català
Deutsch
Español
Esperanto
한국어
Bahasa Indonesia
Italiano
Latina
Lietuvių
Nederlands
日本語
Norsk nynorsk
Polski
Português
Српски / srpski
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Svenska
తెలుగు
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 18 April 2015, at 02:32.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
    
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_fundamentalism












Historical Jesus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search





 In the 21st century, the third quest for the historical Jesus witnessed a fragmentation of the scholarly portraits of Jesus after which no unified picture of Jesus could be attained at all.[1][2]
The term "historical Jesus" refers to attempts to "reconstruct the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth by critical historical methods", in "contrast to Christological definitions ('the dogmatic Christ') and other Christian accounts of Jesus ('the Christ of faith')".[3] It also considers the historical and cultural context in which Jesus lived.[4][5][6]
Virtually all scholars write on the subject accept that Jesus existed,[7][8][9][10] although scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the accounts of his life, and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[11][12][13][14] Historical Jesus scholars typically contend that he was a Galilean Jew living in a time of messianic and apocalyptic expectations.[15][16] Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, whose example he may have followed, and after John was executed, began his own preaching in Galilee for only about two to three years prior to his death. He preached the salvation, cleansing from sins, and the Kingdom of God, using parables with startling imagery, and was said to be a teacher and a faith healer.[17] Some scholars credit the apocalyptic declarations of the Gospels to him, while others portray his Kingdom of God as a moral one, and not apocalyptic in nature.[18] He sent his apostles out to heal and to preach the Kingdom of God.[19] Later, he traveled to Jerusalem in Judea, where he caused a disturbance at the Temple.[15] It was the time of Passover, when political and religious tensions were high in Jerusalem.[15] The Gospels say that the temple guards (believed to be Sadducees) arrested him and turned him over to Pontius Pilate for execution. The movement he had started survived his death and was carried on by his brother James the Just and the apostles who proclaimed the resurrection of Jesus.[20] It developed into Early Christianity (see also List of events in early Christianity).
Since the 18th century, three separate scholarly quests for the historical Jesus have taken place, each with distinct characteristics and developing new and different research criteria.[21][22] The portraits of Jesus that have been constructed in these processes have often differed from each other, and from the dogmatic image portrayed in the gospel accounts.[1] These portraits include that of Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet, charismatic healer, Cynic philosopher, Jewish Messiah and prophet of social change,[23][24] but there is little scholarly agreement on a single portrait, or the methods needed to construct it.[1][2][25] There are, however, overlapping attributes among the various portraits, and scholars who differ on some attributes may agree on others.[23][24][26]
A number of scholars have criticized the various approaches used in the study of the historical Jesus—on one hand for the lack of rigor in research methods, on the other for being driven by "specific agendas" that interpret ancient sources to fit specific goals.[27][28][29] By the 21st century the "maximalist" approaches of the 19th century which accepted all the gospels and the "minimalist" trends of the early 20th century which totally rejected them were abandoned and scholars began to focus on what is historically probable and plausible about Jesus.[30][31][32]
Part of a series on
Jesus

Jesus in Christianity[show]






































Jesus in Islam[show]














Background[show]






Jesus in history[show]














Perspectives on Jesus[show]

















Jesus in culture[show]





Portal icon Christianity portal
Portal icon Islam portal

v ·
 t ·
 e
   



Contents  [hide]
1 Historical elements 1.1 Existence 1.1.1 Evidence of Jesus
1.2 Portraits of the historical Jesus
2 Ministry of Jesus 2.1 Works and miracles
2.2 Jesus as divine 2.2.1 Messiah
2.2.2 Son of God
2.2.3 Son of Man
2.2.4 Other depictions
2.3 Jesus and John the Baptist
2.4 Ministry and teachings 2.4.1 Length of ministry
2.4.2 Parables and paradoxes
2.4.3 Eschatology
2.4.4 Laconic sage
2.4.5 Table fellowship
2.4.6 Disciples
2.4.7 Asceticism
2.5 Jerusalem 2.5.1 Entrance to Jerusalem
2.5.2 Temple disturbance
2.6 Crucifixion
2.7 Burial and Empty Tomb
2.8 Resurrection appearances
3 Methods of research
4 Criticism of Jesus research methods 4.1 Theological bias
4.2 Lack of methodological soundness
4.3 Scarcity of sources
4.4 Myth theory
5 See also
6 Notes
7 References
8 External links

Historical elements[edit]
Existence[edit]
Most contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his nonexistence as effectively refuted.[7][9][10][33][34][35] There is no indication that writers in antiquity who opposed Christianity questioned the existence of Jesus.[36][37] There is, however, widespread disagreement among scholars on the details of the life of Jesus mentioned in the gospel narratives, and on the meaning of his teachings.[14] Scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the biblical accounts of Jesus,[14] and historians tend to look upon supernatural or miraculous claims about Jesus as questions of faith, rather than historical fact.[38]
Evidence of Jesus[edit]
Main articles: Historical reliability of the Gospels, Sources for the historicity of Jesus, Josephus on Jesus and Tacitus on Christ
There is no physical or archaeological evidence for Jesus. All the sources we have are documentary, mainly Christian writings, such as the gospels and the purported letters of the apostles. The authenticity and reliability of these sources has been questioned by many scholars, and few events mentioned in the gospels are universally accepted.[39]
In conjunction with biblical sources, three mentions of Jesus in non-Christian sources have been used in the historical analyses of the existence of Jesus.[40] These are two passages in the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus, and one from the Roman historian Tacitus.[40][41]
Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, written around 93–94 AD, includes two references to the biblical Jesus Christ in Books 18 and 20. The general scholarly view is that while the longer passage, known as the Testimonium Flavianum, is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it is broadly agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus, which was then subject to Christian interpolation or forgery.[42][43] Of the other mention in Josephus, Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman has stated that "few have doubted the genuineness" of Josephus' reference to Jesus in Antiquities 20, 9, 1 and it is only disputed by a small number of scholars.[44][45][46][47]
Roman historian Tacitus referred to Christus and his execution by Pontius Pilate in his Annals (written ca. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44.[48] Robert E. Van Voorst states that the very negative tone of Tacitus' comments on Christians make the passage extremely unlikely to have been forged by a Christian scribe[49] and Boyd and Eddy state that the Tacitus reference is now widely accepted as an independent confirmation of Christ's crucifixion,[50] although some scholars question the authenticity of the passage on various grounds.[49][51][52][53][54][55][55][56][57]
Other considerations outside Christendom are the possible mentions of Jesus in the Talmud. The Talmud speaks in some detail of the conduct of criminal cases of Israel and gathered in one place from 200-500 C.E. "On the eve of the Passover Yeshua was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostacy." The first date of the Sanhedrin judiciary council being recorded as functioning is 57 B.C.E.[58]
Portraits of the historical Jesus[edit]
Main articles: Portraits of the historical Jesus and Quest for the historical Jesus
Since the 18th century, three separate scholarly quests for the historical Jesus have taken place, each with distinct characteristics and developing new and different research criteria.[21][22] The portraits of Jesus that have been constructed in these processes have often differed from each other, and from the dogmatic image portrayed in the gospel accounts.[1] These portraits include that of Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet, charismatic healer, Cynic philosopher, Jewish Messiah and prophet of social change,[23][24] but there is little scholarly agreement on a single portrait, or the methods needed to construct it.[1][2][25] There are, however, overlapping attributes among the various portraits, and scholars who differ on some attributes may agree on others.[23][24][26]
Contemporary scholarship, representing the "third quest," places Jesus firmly in the Jewish tradition.[59] Leading scholars in the "third quest" include E. P. Sanders, Geza Vermes, Gerd Theissen, Christoph Burchard, and John Dominic Crossan.[59] Jesus is seen as the founder of, in the words of E. P. Sanders, a '"renewal movement within Judaism."[59] This scholarship suggests a continuity between Jesus' life as a wandering charismatic and the same lifestyle carried forward by followers after his death.[59] The main criterion used to discern historical details in the "third quest" is the criterion of plausibility, relative to Jesus' Jewish context and to his influence on Christianity.[59] The main disagreement in contemporary research is whether Jesus was apocalyptic.[59] Most scholars conclude that he was an apocalyptic preacher, like John the Baptist and the apostle Paul.[59] In contrast, certain prominent North American scholars, such as Burton Mack and John Dominic Crossan, advocate for a non-eschatological Jesus, one who is more of a Cynic sage than an apocalyptic preacher.[59]
Ministry of Jesus[edit]
Works and miracles[edit]



 Early Christian image of the Good Shepherd. Fourth century.
Jesus is said to have performed various miracles in the course of his ministry. These mostly consist of miraculous healing, exorcisms and dominion over other things in nature besides people.
As Albert Schweitzer showed in his Quest of the Historical Jesus, in the early 19th century, debate about the "Historical Jesus" centered on the credibility of the miracle reports. Early 19th century scholars offered three types of explanation for these miracle stories: they were regarded as supernatural events, or were "rationalized" (e.g. by Paulus), or were regarded as mythical (e.g. by Strauss).[citation needed]
Scholars in both Christian and secular traditions continue to debate how the reports of Jesus' miracles should be construed. The Christian Gospels states that Jesus has God's authoritarian power over nature, life and death, but naturalistic historians, following Strauss, generally choose either to see these stories as legend or allegory, or, for some of the miracles they follow the rationalizing method. For example, the healings and exorcisms are sometimes attributed to the placebo effect.[citation needed]
Jesus as divine[edit]
Jesus was a charismatic preacher who taught the principles of salvation, everlasting life, and the Kingdom of God.[18] Scholars see him as accepting a divine role in the approaching apocalypse as the divine king.[60] Jesus' use of three important terms: Messiah, Son of God, and Son of Man, reveals his understanding of his divine role.[18][60]
Messiah[edit]
Main article: Messiah
In the Hebrew Bible, three classes of people are identified as "anointed," that is, "Messiahs": prophets, priests, and kings.[60] In Jesus' time, the term Messiah was used in different ways, and no one can be sure how Jesus would even have meant it if he had accepted the term.[60] Though Messianic expectations in general centered on the King Messiah, the Essenes expected both a kingly and a priestly figure in their eschatology.[citation needed]
The Jews of Jesus' time waited expectantly for a divine redeemer who would restore Israel, which suffered under Roman rule. John the Baptist was apparently waiting for one greater than himself, an apocalyptic figure.[61] Christian scripture and faith acclaim Jesus as this "Messiah" ("anointed one," "Christ").
Son of God[edit]
Main article: Son of God
Paul describes God as declaring Jesus to be the Son of God by raising him from the dead, and Sanders argues Mark portrays God as adopting Jesus as his son at his baptism,[60] although many others do not accept this interpretation of Mark.[62] Sanders argues that for Jesus to be hailed as the Son of God does not mean that he is literally God's offspring.[60] Rather, it indicates a very high designation, one who stands in a special relation to God.[60]
In the synoptic Gospels, the being of Jesus as "Son of God" corresponds exactly to the typical Hasidean from Galilee, a "pious" holy man that by God's intervention performs miracles and exorcisms.[63][64]
Son of Man[edit]
Main article: Son of Man
The most literal translation here is "Son of Humanity", or "human being". Jesus uses "Son of Man" to mean sometimes "I" or a mortal in general, sometimes a divine figure destined to suffer, and sometimes a heavenly figure of judgment soon to arrive. Jesus usage of son of man in the first way is historical but without divine claim. The Son of Man as one destined to suffer seems to be, according to some, a Christian invention that does not go back to Jesus, and it is not clear whether Jesus meant himself when he spoke of the divine judge.[60] These three uses do not appear together, such as the Son of Man who suffers and returns.[60] Others maintain, that Jesus' use of this phrase, illustrates Jesus' self understanding as the divine representative of God.[65]
Other depictions[edit]
The title Logos, identifying Jesus as the divine word, first appears in the Gospel of John, written c. 90-100.[66]
Raymond E. Brown concluded that the earliest Christians did not call Jesus, "God".[67] New Testament scholars broadly agree that Jesus did not make any implicit claims to be God.[68] See also Divinity of Jesus and Nontrinitarianism.
Pinchas Lapide sees Jesus as a rabbi in the Hasid tradition of Hillel the Elder, Yochanan ben Zakai and Hanina Ben Dosa.[citation needed]
The gospels and Christian tradition depict Jesus as being executed at the insistence of Jewish leaders, who considered his claims to divinity to be blasphemous, see also Responsibility for the death of Jesus. Historically, Jesus seems instead to have been executed as a potential source of unrest.[18][69][70]
Jesus and John the Baptist[edit]
Main article: John the Baptist



 Judean hills of Israel
Jesus began preaching, teaching, and healing after he was baptized by John the Baptist, an apocalyptic ascetic preacher who called on Jews to repent.
Jesus was apparently a follower of John, a populist and activist prophet who looked forward to divine deliverance of the Jewish homeland from the Romans.[71] John was a major religious figure, whose movement was probably larger than Jesus' own.[72] Herod Antipas had John executed as a threat to his power.[72] In a saying thought to have been originally recorded in Q,[73] the historical Jesus defended John shortly after John's death.[74]
John's followers formed a movement that continued after his death alongside Jesus' own following.[72] John's followers apparently believed that John might have risen from the dead,[75][dubious – discuss] an expectation that may have influenced the expectations of Jesus' followers after his own execution.[72] Some of Jesus' followers were former followers of John the Baptist.[72] Fasting and baptism, elements of John's preaching, may have entered early Christian practice as John's followers joined the movement.[72]
John Dominic Crossan portrays Jesus as rejecting John's apocalyptic eschatology in favor of a sapiential eschatology, in which cultural transformation results from humans' own actions, rather than from God's intervention.[19]
Historians consider Jesus' baptism by John to be historical, an event that early Christians would not have included in their Gospels in the absence of a "firm report".[76] Like Jesus, John and his execution are mentioned by Josephus.[72]
John the Baptist's prominence in both the Gospels and Josephus suggests that he may have been more popular than Jesus in his lifetime; also, Jesus' mission does not begin until after his baptism by John. Fredriksen suggests that it was only after Jesus' death that Jesus emerged as more influential than John. Accordingly, the Gospels project Jesus's posthumous importance back to his lifetime. One way Fredriksen believes this was accomplished was by minimizing John's importance by having John resist baptizing Jesus (Matthew), by referring to the baptism in passing (Luke), or by asserting Jesus's superiority (John).[citation needed]
Scholars posit that Jesus may have been a direct follower in John the Baptist's movement. Prominent Historical Jesus scholar John Dominic Crossan suggests that John the Baptist may have been killed for political reasons, not necessarily the personal grudge given in Mark's gospel.[77] Going into the desert and baptising in the Jordan suggests that John and his followers were purifying themselves for what they believed was God's imminent deliverance. This was reminiscent of such a crossing of the Jordan after the Exodus (see Book of Joshua), leading into the promised land of their deliverance from oppression. Jesus' teachings would later diverge from John's apocalyptic vision (though it depends which scholarly view is adopted; according to Ehrman or Sanders apocalyptic vision was the core of Jesus' teaching) which warned of "the wrath to come," as "the axe is laid to the root of the trees" and those who do not bear "good fruit" are "cut down and thrown into the fire." (Luke 3:7-9) Though John's teachings remained visible in those of Jesus, Jesus would emphasize the Kingdom of God not as imminent, but as already present and manifest through the movement's communal commitment to a relationship of equality among all members, and living by the laws of divine justice.[citation needed] All four Gospels agree that Jesus was crucified at the requested of the Jewish Sanhedrin by Pontius Pilate.[citation needed] Crucifixion was the penalty for criminals, robbers, traitors, and political insurrection, used as a symbol of Rome's absolute authority - those who stood against Rome were utterly annihilated.[citation needed]
Ministry and teachings[edit]
Main article: Ministry of Jesus
The synoptic Gospels agree that Jesus grew up in Nazareth, went to the River Jordan to meet and be baptised by the prophet John (Yohannan) the Baptist, and shortly after began healing and preaching to villagers and fishermen around the Sea of Galilee (which is actually a freshwater lake). Although there were many Phoenician, Hellenistic, and Roman cities nearby (e.g. Gesara and Gadara; Sidon and Tyre; Sepphoris and Tiberias), there is only one account of Jesus healing someone in the region of the Gadarenes found in the three synoptic Gospels (the demon called Legion), and another when he healed a Syro-Phoenician girl in the vicinity of Tyre and Sidon.[78] Otherwise, there is no record of Jesus having spent any significant amount of time in Gentile towns.[citation needed] The center of his work was Capernaum, a small town (about 500 by 350 meters, with a population of 1,500-2,000) where, according to the Gospels, he appeared at the town's synagogue (a non-sacred meeting house where Jews would often gather on the Sabbath to study the Torah), healed a paralytic, and continued seeking disciples.[citation needed]
Once Jesus established a following (although there are debates over the number of followers), he moved towards the Davidic capital of the United Monarchy, the city of Jerusalem.
Length of ministry[edit]
Historians do not know how long Jesus preached. The synoptic Gospels suggest a period of up to one year.[79] The Gospel of John mentions three Passovers,[80] Jesus' ministry is traditionally said to have been three years long.[81][82] In the view of Paul N. Anderson, John's presentation is more plausible historically than that of the Synoptics.[83]
Parables and paradoxes[edit]
Main article: Parables of Jesus
Jesus taught in parables and aphorisms. A parable is a figurative image with a single message (sometimes mistaken for an analogy, in which each element has a metaphoric meaning). An aphorism is a short, memorable turn of phrase. In Jesus' case, aphorisms often involve some paradox or reversal. Authentic parables probably include the Good Samaritan and the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard. Authentic aphorisms include "turn the other cheek", "go the second mile", and "love your enemies".
Crossan writes that Jesus' parables worked on multiple levels at the same time, provoking discussions with his peasant audience.[19]
Jesus' parables and aphorisms circulated orally among his followers for years before they were written down and later incorporated into the Gospels. They represent the earliest Christian traditions about Jesus.[70]
Eschatology[edit]
Jesus preached mainly about the Kingdom of God. Scholars are divided over whether he was referring to an imminent apocalyptic event or the transformation of everyday life.
A great many - if not a majority - of critical Biblical scholars, going as far back as Albert Schweitzer, hold that Jesus believed that the end of history was coming within his own lifetime or within the lifetime of his contemporaries.[84]
The evidence for this thesis comes from several verses, including the following:
In Mark 8:38-9:1, Jesus says that the Son of Man will come "in the glory of the Father with the holy angels" during "this adulterous generation." Indeed, he says, "there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the Kingdom of God has come in power."
In Luke 21:35-36, Jesus urges constant, unremitting preparedness on the part of his followers in light of the imminence of the end of history and the final intervention of God. "Be alert at all times, praying to have strength to flee from all these things that are about to take place and to stand in the presence of the Son of Man."
In Mark 13:24-27, 30, Jesus describes what will happen when the end comes, saying that "the sun will grow dark and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will be falling from heaven, and ... they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds with great power and glory." He gives a timeline for this event: "Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away before all these things take place."
The Apostle Paul also seems to have shared this expectation. Toward the end of 1 Corinthians 7, he counsels Christians to avoid getting married if they can since the end of history was imminent. Speaking to the unmarried, he writes, "I think that, in view of the impending crisis, it is well for you to remain as your are." "I mean, brothers and sisters, the appointed time has grown short ... For the present form of this world is passing away." (1 Corinthians 7:26, 29, 31) In 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17, Paul also seems to believe that he will live to witness the return of Jesus and the end of history.
According to Geza Vermes, Jesus' announcement of the imminent arrival of the Kingdom of God "was patently not fulfilled" and "created a serious embarrassment for the primitive church".[85] According to E.P. Sanders, these eschatological sayings of Jesus are "passages that many Christian scholars would like to see vanish" as "the events they predict did not come to pass, which means that Jesus was wrong."[86]
Robert W. Funk and colleagues, on the other hand, wrote that beginning in the 1970s, some scholars have come to reject the view of Jesus as eschatological, pointing out that he rejected the asceticism of John the Baptist and his eschatological message. In this view, the Kingdom of God is not a future state, but rather a contemporary, mysterious presence. John Dominic Crossan describes Jesus' eschatology as based on establishing a new, holy way of life rather than on God's redeeming intervention in history.[19]
Evidence for the Kingdom of God as already present derives from these verses.[87]
In Luke 17:20-21, Jesus says that one won't be able to observe God's Kingdom arriving, and that it "is right there in your presence."
In Thomas 113, Jesus says that God's Kingdom "is spread out upon the earth, and people don't see it."
In Luke 11:20, Jesus says that if he drives out demons by God's finger then "for you" the Kingdom of God has arrived.
Furthermore, the major parables of Jesus do not reflect an apocalyptic view of history.
The Jesus Seminar concludes that apocalyptic statements attributed to Jesus could have originated from early Christians, as apocalyptic ideas were common, but the statements about God's Kingdom being mysteriously present cut against the common view and could have originated only with Jesus himself.[87]
Laconic sage[edit]
The sage of the ancient Near East was a self-effacing man of few words who did not provoke encounters.[88] A holy man offers cures and exorcisms only when petitioned, and even then may be reluctant.[88] Jesus seems to have displayed a similar style.[88]
The Gospels present Jesus engaging in frequent "question and answer" religious debates with Pharisees and Sadducees. The Jesus Seminar believes the debates about scripture and doctrine are rabbinic in style and not characteristic of Jesus.[89] They believe these "conflict stories" represent the conflicts between the early Christian community and those around them: the Pharisees, Sadducees, etc. The group believes these sometimes include genuine sayings or concepts but are largely the product of the early Christian community.
Table fellowship[edit]
Open table fellowship with outsiders was central to Jesus' ministry.[19] His practice of eating with the lowly people that he healed defied the expectations of traditional Jewish society.[19] He presumably taught at the meal, as would be expected in a symposium.[70] His conduct caused enough of a scandal that he was accused of being a glutton and a drunk.[70]
John Dominic Crossan identifies this table practice as part of Jesus' radical egalitarian program.[19] The importance of table fellowship is seen in the prevalence of meal scenes in early Christian art[19] and in the Eucharist, the Christian ritual of bread and wine.[70]
Disciples[edit]
Main article: Disciple (Christianity)
Jesus recruited twelve Galilean peasants as his inner circle, including several fishermen.[90] The fishermen in question and the tax collector Matthew would have business dealings requiring some knowledge of Greek.[91] The father of two of the fishermen is represented as having the means to hire labourers for his fishing business, and tax collectors were seen as exploiters.[92] The twelve were expected to rule the twelve tribes of Israel in the Kingdom of God.[90]
The disciples of Jesus play a large role in the search for the historical Jesus. However, the four Gospels, use different words to apply to Jesus' followers. The Greek word "ochloi" refers to the crowds who gathered around Jesus as he preached. The word "mathetes" refers to the followers who stuck around for more teaching. The word "apostolos" refers to the twelve disciples, or apostles, whom Jesus chose specifically to be his close followers. With these three categories of followers, Meier uses a model of concentric circles around Jesus, with an inner circle of true disciples, a larger circle of followers, and an even larger circle of those who gathered to listen to him.
Jesus controversially accepted women and sinners (those who violated purity laws) among his followers. Even though women were never directly called "disciples", certain passages in the Gospels seem to indicate that women followers of Jesus were equivalent to the disciples. It was possible for members of the "ochloi" to cross over into the "mathetes" category. However, Meier argues that some people from the "mathetes" category actually crossed into the "apostolos" category, namely Mary Magdalene. The narration of Jesus' death and the events that accompany it mention the presence of women. Meier states that the pivotal role of the women at the cross is revealed in the subsequent narrative, where at least some of the women, notably Mary Magdalene, witnessed both the burial of Jesus (Mark 15:47) and discovered the empty tomb (Mark 16:1-8). Luke also mentions that as Jesus and the Twelve were travelling from city to city preaching the "good news", they were accompanied by women, who provided for them out of their own means. We can conclude that women did follow Jesus a considerable length of time during his Galilean ministry and his last journey to Jerusalem. Such a devoted, long-term following could not occur without the initiative or active acceptance of the women who followed him. However, most scholars would argue that it is unreasonable to say that Mary Magdalene's seemingly close relationship with Jesus suggests that she was a disciple of Jesus or one of the Twelve.[citation needed] In name, the women are not historically considered "disciples" of Jesus, but the fact that he allowed them to follow and serve him proves that they were to some extent treated as disciples.
The Gospels recount Jesus commissioning disciples to spread the word, sometimes during his life (e.g., Mark 6:7-12) and sometimes during a resurrection appearance (e.g., Matthew 28:18-20). These accounts reflect early Christian practice as well as Jesus' original instructions, though some scholars contend that historical Jesus issued no such missionary commission.[93]
According to John Dominic Crossan, Jesus sent his disciples out to heal and to proclaim the Kingdom of God. They were to eat with those they healed rather than with higher status people who might well be honored to host a healer, and Jesus directed them to eat whatever was offered them. This implicit challenge to the social hierarchy was part of Jesus' program of radical egalitarianism. These themes of healing and eating are common in early Christian art.[19]
Jesus' instructions to the missionaries appear in the synoptic Gospels and in the Gospel of Thomas.[19] These instructions are distinct from the commission that the resurrected Jesus gives to his followers, the Great Commission, text rated as black (inauthentic) by the Jesus Seminar.[94]
Asceticism[edit]
See also: Evangelical counsels
The fellows of the Jesus Seminar mostly held that Jesus was not an ascetic, and that he probably drank wine and did not fast, other than as all observant Jews did.[95] He did, however, promote a simple life and the renunciation of wealth.
Jesus said that some made themselves "eunuchs" for the Kingdom of Heaven (Matthew 19:12). This aphorism might have been meant to establish solidarity with eunuchs, who were considered "incomplete" in Jewish society.[96] Alternatively, he may have been promoting celibacy.
Some[who?] suggest that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, or that he probably had a special relationship with her,[97] or that he was married to Mary the sister of Lazarus.[citation needed] However, Ehrman notes the conjectural nature of these claims as "not a single one of our ancient sources indicates that Jesus was married, let alone married to Mary Magdalene."[98]
John the Baptist was an ascetic and perhaps a Nazirite, who promoted celibacy like the Essenes.[99] Ascetic elements, such as fasting, appeared in Early Christianity and are mentioned by Matthew during Jesus' discourse on ostentation.
Jerusalem[edit]



 The narrow streets of Via Dolorosa, Jerusalem.
See also: Jerusalem in Christianity
Jesus and his followers left Galilee and traveled to Jerusalem in Judea. They may have traveled through Samaria as reported in John, or around the border of Samaria as reported in Luke, as was common practice for Jews avoiding hostile Samaritans. Jerusalem was packed with Jews who had come for Passover, perhaps comprising 300,000 to 400,000 pilgrims.[100]
Entrance to Jerusalem[edit]
Main article: Palm Sunday
Jesus might have entered Jerusalem on a donkey as a symbolic act, possibly to contrast with the triumphant entry that a Roman conqueror would make, or to enact a prophecy in Zechariah. Christian scripture makes the reference to Zechariah explicit, perhaps because the scene was invented as scribes looked to scripture to help them flesh out the details of the gospel narratives.[70]
Temple disturbance[edit]
Main article: Jesus and the Money Changers
Jesus taught in Jerusalem, and he caused a disturbance at the Temple.[70] In response, the temple authorities arrested him and turned him over to the Roman authorities for execution.[70] He might have been betrayed into the hands of the temple police, but Funk suggests the authorities might have arrested him with no need for a traitor.[70]
Crucifixion[edit]



Antonio Ciseri's 1862 depiction of Ecce Homo, as Pontius Pilate delivers Jesus to the crowd
Jesus was crucified by Pontius Pilate, the Prefect of Iudaea province (26 AD to 36 AD). Some scholars suggest that Pilate executed Jesus as a public nuisance, perhaps with the cooperation of the Jewish authorities.[70] E. P. Sanders argued that the cleansing of the Temple was an act that seriously offended his Jewish audience and eventually led to his death,[101][102][103] while Bart D. Ehrman argued that Jesus' actions would have been considered treasonous and thus a capital offense by the Romans.[104] The claim that the Sadducee high-priestly leaders and their associates handed Jesus over to the Romans is strongly attested.[69] Historians debate whether Jesus intended to be crucified.[105]
The Jesus Seminar argued that Christian scribes seem to have drawn on scripture in order to flesh out the passion narrative, such as inventing Jesus' trial.[70] However, scholars are split on the historicity of the underlying events.[106]
John Dominic Crossan points to the use of the word "kingdom" in his central teachings of the "Kingdom of God," which alone would have brought Jesus to the attention of Roman authority. Rome dealt with Jesus as it commonly did with essentially non-violent dissension: the killing of its leader. It was usually violent uprisings such as those during the Roman-Jewish Wars that warranted the slaughter of leader and followers. As the balance shifted in the early Church from the Jewish community to Gentile converts, it may have sought to distance itself from rebellious Jews (those who rose up against the Roman occupation). There was also a schism developing within the Jewish community as these believers in Jesus were pushed out of the synagogues after the Roman destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD, see Council of Jamnia. The divergent accounts of Jewish involvement in the trial of Jesus suggest some of the unfavorable sentiments between such Jews that resulted. See also List of events in early Christianity.



Pietro Perugino, Crucifixion of Christ, 1494-1496, Florence
Aside from the fact that the Gospels provide different accounts of the Jewish role in Jesus's death (for example, Mark and Matthew report two separate trials, Luke one, and John none), Fredriksen, like other scholars (see Catchpole 1971) argues that many elements of the gospel accounts could not possibly have happened: according to Jewish law, the court could not meet at night; it could not meet on a major holiday; Jesus's statements to the Sanhedrin or the High Priest (e.g. that he was the messiah) did not constitute blasphemy; the charges that the Gospels purport the Jews to have made against Jesus were not capital crimes against Jewish law; even if Jesus had been accused and found guilty of a capital offense by the Sanhedrin, the punishment would have been death by stoning (the fates of Saint Stephen and James the Just for example) and not crucifixion. This necessarily assumes that the Jewish leaders were scrupulously obedient to Roman law, and never broke their own laws, customs or traditions even for their own advantage. In response, it has been argued that the legal circumstances surrounding the trial have not been well understood,[107] and that Jewish leaders were not always strictly obedient, either to Roman law or to their own.[108] Furthermore, talk of a restoration of the Jewish monarchy was seditious under Roman occupation. Further, Jesus would have entered Jerusalem at an especially risky time, during Passover, when popular emotions were running high. Although most Jews did not have the means to travel to Jerusalem for every holiday, virtually all tried to comply with these laws as best they could. And during these festivals, such as the Passover, the population of Jerusalem would swell, and outbreaks of violence were common. Scholars suggest that the High Priest feared that Jesus' talk of an imminent restoration of an independent Jewish state might spark a riot. Maintaining the peace was one of the primary jobs of the Roman-appointed High Priest, who was personally responsible to them for any major outbreak. Scholars therefore argue that he would have arrested Jesus for promoting sedition and rebellion, and turned him over to the Romans for punishment.

Both the gospel accounts and [the] Pauline interpolation [found at 1 Thes 2:14-16] were composed in the period immediately following the terrible war of 66-73. The Church had every reason to assure prospective Gentile audiences that the Christian movement neither threatened nor challenged imperial sovereignty, despite the fact that their founder had himself been crucified, that is, executed as a rebel.[109]
However, Paul's preaching of the Gospel and its radical social practices were by their very definition a direct affront to the social hierarchy of Greco-Roman society itself, and thus these new teachings undermined the Empire, ultimately leading to full scale Roman persecution of Christians aimed at stamping out the new faith.
Burial and Empty Tomb[edit]
Some scholars are split on whether Jesus was buried. Craig A. Evans contends that, "the literary, historical and archaeological evidence points in one direction: that the body of Jesus was placed in a tomb, according to Jewish custom."[110] John Dominic Crossan, based on his unique position that the Gospel of Peter contains the oldest primary source about Jesus, argued that the burial accounts become progressively extravagant and thus found it historically unlikely that an enemy would release a corpse, contending that Jesus' followers did not have the means to know what happened to Jesus' body.[111] Crossan's position on the Gospel of Peter has not found scholarly support,[112] from Meyer's description of it as "eccentric and implausible",[113] to Koester's critique of it as "seriously flawed".[114] Habermas argued against Crossan, stating that the response of Jewish authorities against Christian claims for the resurrection presupposed a burial and empty tomb,[115] and he observed the discovery of the body of Yohanan Ben Ha'galgol, a man who died by crucifixion in the first century and was discovered at a burial site outside ancient Jerusalem in an ossuary, arguing that this find revealed important facts about crucifixion and burial in first century Palestine.[116] Other scholars consider the burial by Joseph of Arimathea found in Mark 15 to be historically probable,[117] and some have gone on to argue that the tomb was thereafter discovered empty.[118] More positively, Mark Waterman maintains the Empty Tomb priority over the Appearances.[119] Michael Grant wrote:

[I]f we apply the same sort of criteria that we would apply to any other ancient literary sources, then the evidence is firm and plausible enough to necessitate the conclusion that the tomb was indeed found empty.[120]
However, Marcus Borg notes:

the first reference to the empty tomb story is rather odd: Mark, writing around 70 CE, tells us that some women found the tomb empty but told no one about it. Some scholars think this indicates that the story of the empty tomb is a late development and that the way Mark tells it explains why it was not widely (or previously) known[121]
Likewise, scholars Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz conclude that "the empty tomb can only be illuminated by the Easter faith (which is based on appearances); the Easter faith cannot be illuminated by the empty tomb."[122]
Resurrection appearances[edit]
Main article: Resurrection appearances of Jesus



The Incredulity of Saint Thomas by Caravaggio (16th century), depicts the resurrected Jesus.
Peter, Paul, and Mary apparently had visionary experiences of a risen Jesus.[70] Paul recorded his vision in an epistle and lists other reported appearances. The original Mark reports Jesus' empty tomb, and the later Gospels and later endings to Mark narrate various resurrection appearances.
The two oldest manuscripts (4th century) of Mark, the earliest Gospel, break off at 16:8 stating that the women came and found an empty tomb "and they said nothing to anyone because they were afraid". (Mk 16:8) The passages stating that he had been seen by Mary Magdelene and the eleven disciples (Mk 16:9-20) were added only later, and the hypothetical original ending was lost. Scholars have put forth a number of theories concerning the resurrection appearances of Jesus. The Jesus Seminar concluded: "In the view of the Seminar, he did not rise bodily from the dead; the resurrection is based instead on visionary experiences of Peter, Paul, and Mary."[123] E.P. Sanders argues for the difficulty of accusing the early witnesses of any deliberate fraud:

It is difficult to accuse these sources, or the first believers, of deliberate fraud. A plot to foster belief in the Resurrection would probably have resulted in a more consistent story. Instead, there seems to have been a competition: 'I saw him,' 'so did I,' 'the women saw him first,' 'no, I did; they didn't see him at all,' and so on. Moreover, some of the witnesses of the Resurrection would give their lives for their belief. This also makes fraud unlikely.[124]
Most scholars believe supernatural events cannot be reconstructed using empirical methods, and thus consider the resurrection a non-historical question but instead a philosophical or theological question.[125]
Methods of research[edit]
See also: Quest for the historical Jesus



Albert Schweitzer, whose book coined the term Quest for the historical Jesus
In the early church, there were already tendencies to portray Jesus as a verifiable demonstration of the extraordinary.[126][127] Since the 18th century, scholars have taken part in three separate "quests" for the historical Jesus, attempting to reconstruct various portraits of his life using historical methods.[21][128] While textual criticism (or lower criticism) had been practiced for centuries, a number of approaches to historical analysis and a number of criteria for evaluating the historicity of events emerged as of the 18th century, as a series of "Quests for the historical Jesus" took place. At each stage of development, scholars suggested specific forms and methodologies of analysis and specific criteria to be used to determine historical validity.[129]
The first Quest, which started in 1778, was almost entirely based on biblical criticism. This was supplemented with form criticism in 1919 and redaction criticism in 1948.[129] Form criticism began as an attempt to trace the history of the biblical material before it was written down, and may thus be seen as starting when textual criticism ends.[130] Form criticism looks for patterns within units of biblical text and attempts to trace their origin based on the patterns.[130] Redaction criticism may be viewed as the child of text criticism and form criticism.[131] This approach views an author as a "redactor" i.e. someone preparing a report, and tries to understand how the redactor(s) has molded the narrative to express their own perspectives.[131]
At the end of the first Quest (c. 1906) the criterion for multiple attestation was used and was the major additional element up to 1950s.[129] The concept behind multiple attestation is simple: as the number of independent sources that vouch for an event increases, confidence in the historical authenticity of the event rises.[129]
Other criteria were being developed at the same time, e.g. "double dissimilarity" in 1913, "least distinctiveness" in 1919 and "coherence and consistency" in 1921.[129] The criterion of double dissimilarity views a reported saying or action of Jesus as possibly authentic, if it is dissimilar from both the Judaism of his time and also from the traditions of the early Christianity that immediately followed him.[132] The least distinctiveness criterion relies on the assumption that when stories are passed from person to person, the peripheral, least distinct elements may be distorted, but the central element remains unchanged.[133] The criterion of "coherence and consistency" states that material can be used only when other material has been identified as authentic to corroborate it.[129]
The second Quest was launched in 1953, and along with it the criterion of embarrassment was introduced.[129] This criterion states that a group is unlikely to invent a story that would be embarrassing to themselves.[129] The criterion of "historical plausibility" was introduced in 1997, after the start of the third Quest in 1988.[129] This principle analyzes the plausibility of an event in two separate components: contextual plausibility and consequential plausibility, i.e. the historical context needs to be suitable, as well as the consequences.[129]
A new characteristic of the modern aspects of the third quest has been the role of archaeology and James Charlesworth states that few modern scholars now want to overlook the archaeological discoveries that clarify the nature of life in Galilee and Judea during the time of Jesus.[134] A further characteristic of the third quest has been its interdisciplinary and global nature of the scholarship.[135] While the first two quests was mostly by European Protestant theologians, the third quest has seen a worldwide influx of scholars from multiple disciplines.[135]
More recently historicists have focussed their attention on the historical writings associated with the period in which Jesus lived[136][137] or on the evidence concerning his family.[138][139][140] The redaction of these documents through early Christian sources till the 3rd or 4th centuries has also been a rich source of new information.
Criticism of Jesus research methods[edit]
A number of scholars have criticised Historical Jesus research for religious bias and lack of methodological soundness, and some have argued that modern biblical scholarship is insufficiently critical and sometimes amounts to covert apologetics.[141][142]
Theological bias[edit]
John Meier, a Catholic priest and a professor of theology at University of Notre Dame, has stated "... I think a lot of the confusion comes from the fact that people claim they are doing a quest for the historical Jesus when de facto they’re doing theology, albeit a theology that is indeed historically informed ..."[143] Meier also wrote that in the past the quest for the historical Jesus has often been motivated more by a desire to produce an alternate Christology than a true historical search.[28]
The British Methodist scholar Clive Marsh[144] has stated that the construction of the portraits of Jesus as part of various quests have often been driven by "specific agendas" and that historical components of the relevant biblical texts are often interpreted to fit specific goals.[29] Marsh lists theological agendas that aim to confirm the divinity of Jesus, anti-ecclesiastical agendas that aim to discredit Christianity and political agendas that aim to interpret the teachings of Jesus with the hope of causing social change.[29][145]
The New Testament scholar Nicholas Perrin has argued that since most biblical scholars are Christians, a certain bias is inevitable, but he does not see this as a major problem.[146][147]
Lack of methodological soundness[edit]
The historical analysis techniques used by biblical scholars have been questioned,[27][28][29] and according to James Dunn it is not possible "to construct (from the available data) a Jesus who will be the real Jesus."[148][149][150]
W.R. Herzog has stated that "What we call the historical Jesus is the composite of the recoverable bits and pieces of historical information and speculation about him that we assemble, construct, and reconstruct. For this reason, the historical Jesus is, in Meier's words, 'a modern abstraction and construct.'"[151]
Donald Akenson, Professor of Irish Studies in the department of history at Queen's University has argued that, with very few exceptions, the historians attempting to reconstruct a biography of the man apart from the mere facts of his existence and crucifixion have not followed sound historical practices. He has stated that there is an unhealthy reliance on consensus, for propositions, which should otherwise be based on primary sources, or rigorous interpretation. He also identifies a peculiar downward dating creep, and holds that some of the criteria being used are faulty. He says that the overwhelming majority of biblical scholars are employed in institutions whose roots are in religious beliefs. Because of this, more than any other group in present day academia, biblical historians are under immense pressure to theologize their historical work. It is only through considerable individual heroism, that many biblical historians have managed to maintain the scholarly integrity of their work.[152][153]
Dale Allison, a Presbyterian theologian and professor of New Testament Exegesis and Early Christianity at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, says, "... We wield our criteria to get what we want ..."[27]
According to James Dunn, "...the 'historical Jesus' is properly speaking a nineteenth- and twentieth-century construction using the data provided by the Synoptic tradition, not Jesus back then and not a figure in history."[154] (Emphasis in the original). Dunn further explains that "the facts are not to be identified as data; they are always an interpretation of the data.[155]
Since Albert Schweitzer's book The Quest of the Historical Jesus, scholars have for long stated that many of the portraits of Jesus are "pale reflections of the researchers" themselves.[23][156][157] Albert Schweitzer accused early scholars of religious bias. John Dominic Crossan summarized the recent situation by stating that many authors writing about the life of Jesus "... do autobiography and call it biography."[23][158]
Scarcity of sources[edit]
Bart Ehrman and separately Andreas Köstenberger contend that given the scarcity of historical sources, it is generally difficult for any scholar to construct a portrait of Jesus that can be considered historically valid beyond the basic elements of his life.[159][160] On the other hand, scholars such as N. T. Wright and Luke Timothy Johnson argue that the image of Jesus presented in the gospels is largely accurate, and that dissenting scholars are simply too cautious about what we can claim to know about the ancient period.[125]
Myth theory[edit]
Main article: Christ myth theory
The Christ myth theory is the proposition that Jesus of Nazareth never existed, or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity and the accounts in the gospels.[161] Many proponents use a three-fold argument first developed in the 19th century: that the New Testament has no historical value, that there are no non-Christian references to Jesus Christ from the first century, and that Christianity had pagan and/or mythical roots.[162]
In recent years, there have been a number of books and documentaries on this subject. Some "mythicists" say that Jesus may have been a real person, but that the biblical accounts of him are almost entirely fictional.[163][164][165]
The scholarly consensus is that the Christ myth theory has been refuted, and that Jesus indeed existed as a historical figure.[166]
See also[edit]
Academic approachBiblical archaeology
Biblical criticism
Biblical manuscript
Census of Quirinius, the enrollment of the Roman provinces of Syria and Judaea for tax purposes taken in the year 6/7.
Criterion of dissimilarity
Criticism of the Bible
Historical background of the New Testament
Historicity of Jesus Sources for the historicity of Jesus
Historicity of the Bible
Jesus Seminar
Christian approachChronology of Jesus
Detailed Christian timeline
Gospel harmony
Life of Jesus in the New Testament
Ministry of Jesus
Associated sitesÆnon
Al Maghtas
Bethabara
New Testament places associated with Jesus
Qasr el Yahud
Notes[edit]
1.^ Jump up to: a b c d e The Quest for the Plausible Jesus: The Question of Criteria by Gerd Theissen and Dagmar Winter (Aug 30, 2002) ISBN 0664225373 page 5
2.^ Jump up to: a b c Jesus Research: An International Perspective (Princeton-Prague Symposia Series on the Historical Jesus) by James H. Charlesworth and Petr Pokorny (Sep 15, 2009) ISBN 0802863531 pages 1-2
3.Jump up ^ The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, edited by Frank Leslie Cross, Elizabeth A. Livingstone, p 779, at http://books.google.co.za/books?id=fUqcAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA779&dq=Historical+Jesus,+Quest+of+the.%22+Oxford+Dictionary+of+the+Christian+Church&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ZPszVN7tN4XEPbyzgMAO&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Historical%20Jesus%2C%20Quest%20of%20the.%22%20Oxford%20Dictionary%20of%20the%20Christian%20Church&f=false
4.Jump up ^ Amy-Jill Levine in the The Historical Jesus in Context edited by Amy-Jill Levine et al. 2006 Princeton Univ Press ISBN 978-0-691-00992-6 pages 1-2
5.Jump up ^ Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium by Bart D. Ehrman (Sep 23, 1999) ISBN 0195124731 Oxford University Press pp. ix-xi
6.Jump up ^ Ehrman, Bart. The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. ISBN 0-19-515462-2, chapters 13, 15
7.^ Jump up to: a b In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart Ehrman (a secular agnostic) wrote: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees" B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged : writing in the name of God ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6. page 285
8.Jump up ^ Robert M. Price (an atheist who denies the existence of Jesus) agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars: Robert M. Price "Jesus at the Vanishing Point" in The Historical Jesus: Five Views edited by James K. Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy, 2009 InterVarsity, ISBN 028106329X page 61
9.^ Jump up to: a b Michael Grant (a classicist) states that "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." in Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels by Michael Grant 2004 ISBN 1898799881 page 200
10.^ Jump up to: a b Richard A. Burridge states: "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that anymore." in Jesus Now and Then by Richard A. Burridge and Graham Gould (Apr 1, 2004) ISBN 0802809774 page 34
11.Jump up ^ Jesus Remembered by James D. G. Dunn 2003 ISBN 0-8028-3931-2 page 339 states of baptism and crucifixion that these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent".
12.Jump up ^ Prophet and Teacher: An Introduction to the Historical Jesus by William R. Herzog (4 Jul 2005) ISBN 0664225284 pages 1-6
13.Jump up ^ Crossan, John Dominic (1995). Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. HarperOne. p. 145. ISBN 0-06-061662-8. "That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus ... agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact."
14.^ Jump up to: a b c Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee by Mark Allan Powell 1998 ISBN 0-664-25703-8 pages 168–173
15.^ Jump up to: a b c Sanders, E. P. The historical figure of Jesus. Penguin, 1993.
16.Jump up ^ John Dickson, Jesus: A Short Life. Lion Hudson 2009, pp. 138-9.
17.Jump up ^ Theissen, Gerd and Annette Merz. The historical Jesus: a comprehensive guide. Fortress Press. 1998. translated from German (1996 edition). Chapter 10. Jesus as healer: the miracles of Jesus.
18.^ Jump up to: a b c d Theissen, Gerd and Annette Merz. The historical Jesus: a comprehensive guide. Fortress Press. 1998. translated from German (1996 edition)
19.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j Crossan, John Dominic. The essential Jesus. Edison: Castle Books. 1998.
20.Jump up ^ E.P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus. p.280
21.^ Jump up to: a b c The Jesus Quest: The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth by Ben Witherington (May 8, 1997) ISBN 0830815449 pages 9-13
22.^ Jump up to: a b Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee by Mark Allan Powell (1 Jan 1999) ISBN 0664257038 pages 19-23
23.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament by Andreas J. Köstenberger, L. Scott Kellum 2009 ISBN 978-0-8054-4365-3 pages 124-125
24.^ Jump up to: a b c d The Cambridge History of Christianity, Volume 1 by Margaret M. Mitchell and Frances M. Young (Feb 20, 2006) ISBN 0521812399 page 23
25.^ Jump up to: a b Images of Christ (Academic Paperback) by Stanley E. Porter, Michael A. Hayes and David Tombs (Dec 19, 2004) ISBN 0567044602 T&T Clark page 74
26.^ Jump up to: a b Familiar Stranger: An Introduction to Jesus of Nazareth by Michael James McClymond (Mar 22, 2004) ISBN 0802826806 pages 16-22
27.^ Jump up to: a b c Allison, Dale (February 2009). The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. p. 59. ISBN 978-0-8028-6262-4. Retrieved Jan 9, 2011. "We wield our criteria to get what we want."
28.^ Jump up to: a b c John P. Meier (26 May 2009). A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Law and Love. Yale University Press. pp. 6–. ISBN 978-0-300-14096-5. Retrieved 27 August 2010.
29.^ Jump up to: a b c d Clive Marsh, "Diverse Agendas at Work in the Jesus Quest" in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus by Tom Holmen and Stanley E. Porter (Jan 12, 2011) ISBN 9004163727 pages 986-1002
30.Jump up ^ John P. Meier "Criteria: How do we decide what comes from Jesus?" in The Historical Jesus in Recent Research by James D. G. Dunn and Scot McKnight (Jul 15, 2006) ISBN 1575061007 page 124 "Since in the quest for the historical Jesus almost anything is possible, the function of the criteria is to pass from the merely possible to the really probable, to inspect various probabilities, and to decide which candidate is most probable. Ordinarily the criteria can not hope to do more."
31.Jump up ^ The Historical Jesus of the Gospels by Craig S. Keener (13 Apr 2012) ISBN 0802868886 page 163
32.Jump up ^ Jesus in Contemporary Scholarship by Marcus J. Borg (1 Aug 1994) ISBN 1563380943 pages 4-6
33.Jump up ^ Robert E. Van Voorst Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence Eerdmans Publishing, 2000. ISBN 0-8028-4368-9 page 16 states: "biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted"
34.Jump up ^ James D. G. Dunn "Paul's understanding of the death of Jesus" in Sacrifice and Redemption edited by S. W. Sykes (Dec 3, 2007) Cambridge University Press ISBN 052104460X pages 35-36 states that the theories of non-existence of Jesus are "a thoroughly dead thesis"
35.Jump up ^ The Gospels and Jesus by Graham Stanton, 1989 ISBN 0192132415 Oxford University Press, p. 145: "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed".
36.Jump up ^ Encyclopedia of theology: a concise Sacramentum mundi by Karl Rahner 2004 ISBN 0-86012-006-6 pages 730-731
37.Jump up ^ Van Voorst, Robert E (2000). Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. Eerdmans Publishing. ISBN 0-8028-4368-9-page 15
38.Jump up ^ "What about the resurrection? ... Some people believe it did, some believe it didn't. ... But if you do believe it, it is not as a historian" Ehrman, B. Jesus, Interrupted, pg 176 HarperOne; 1 Reprint edition (2 February 2010)
39.Jump up ^ Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee by Mark Allan Powell 1998 ISBN 0-664-25703-8 page 181
40.^ Jump up to: a b Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey by Craig L. Blomberg 2009 ISBN 0-8054-4482-3 pages 431-436
41.Jump up ^ Van Voorst (2000) pp. 39-53
42.Jump up ^ Schreckenberg, Heinz; Kurt Schubert (1992). Jewish Traditions in Early Christian Literature. ISBN 90-232-2653-4.
43.Jump up ^ Kostenberger, Andreas J.; L. Scott Kellum; Charles L. Quarles (2009). The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament. ISBN 0-8054-4365-7.
44.Jump up ^ The new complete works of Josephus by Flavius Josephus, William Whiston, Paul L. Maier ISBN 0-8254-2924-2 pages 662-663
45.Jump up ^ Josephus XX by Louis H. Feldman 1965, ISBN 0674995023 page 496
46.Jump up ^ Van Voorst, Robert E. (2000). Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence ISBN 0-8028-4368-9. page 83
47.Jump up ^ Flavius Josephus; Maier, Paul L. (December 1995). Josephus, the essential works: a condensation of Jewish antiquities and The Jewish war ISBN 978-0-8254-3260-6 pages 284-285
48.Jump up ^ P.E. Easterling, E. J. Kenney (general editors), The Cambridge History of Latin Literature, page 892 (Cambridge University Press, 1982, reprinted 1996). ISBN 0-521-21043-7
49.^ Jump up to: a b Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence, Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2000. p 39- 53
50.Jump up ^ Eddy, Paul; Boyd, Gregory (2007). The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition Baker Academic, ISBN 0-8010-3114-1 page 127
51.Jump up ^ F.F. Bruce,Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974) p. 23
52.Jump up ^ Theissen, Gerd; Merz, Annette (1998). The historical Jesus: a comprehensive guide. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. p. 83. ISBN 978-0-8006-3122-2.
53.Jump up ^ The Case Against Christianity, By Michael Martin, pg 50-51, at http://books.google.co.za/books?id=wWkC4dTmK0AC&pg=PA52&dq=historicity+of+jesus&hl=en&sa=X&ei=o-_8U5-yEtTH7AbBpoCoAg&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=tacitus&f=false
54.Jump up ^ The Historical Jesus in the Twentieth Century: 1900-1950, By Walter P. Weaver, pg 53, pg 57, at http://books.google.co.za/books?id=1CZbuFBdAMUC&pg=PA45&dq=historicity+of+jesus&hl=en&sa=X&ei=o-_8U5-yEtTH7AbBpoCoAg&ved=0CEoQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=tacitus&f=false
55.^ Jump up to: a b Secret of Regeneration, By Hilton Hotema, pg 100, at http://books.google.co.za/books?id=jCaopp3R5B0C&pg=PA100&dq=interpolations+in+tacitus&hl=en&sa=X&ei=CRf-U9-VGZCe7AbxrIDQCA&ved=0CCAQ6AEwATge#v=onepage&q=interpolations%20in%20tacitus&f=false
56.Jump up ^ Jesus, University Books, New York, 1956, p.13
57.Jump up ^ France, RT (1986). Evidence for Jesus (Jesus Library). Trafalgar Square Publishing. pp. 19–20. ISBN 0-340-38172-8.
58.Jump up ^ Schachter/H.Freedman, Jacob. "Sanhedrin". come-and-hear.com. The Soncino Press. Retrieved 22 January 2015.
59.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h Theissen, Gerd and Annette Merz. The historical Jesus: a comprehensive guide. Fortress Press. 1998. translated from German (1996 edition). Chapter 1. The quest of the historical Jesus. p. 1–15.
60.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i Sanders, E. P. The historical figure of Jesus. Penguin, 1993. Chapter 15, Jesus' view of his role in God's plan.
61.Jump up ^ Funk, Robert W. and the Jesus Seminar. The gospel of Jesus: according to the Jesus Seminar. HarperSanFrancisco. 1999.
62.Jump up ^ Brown, Raymond E. et al. (1990). The New Jerome Biblical Commentary. Prentice Hall. ISBN 0-13-614934-0.
63.Jump up ^ Vermes, Geza Jesus the Jew, Fortress Press, New York 1981. p.209
64.Jump up ^ Paolo Flores d'Arcais, MicroMega 3/2007, p.43
65.Jump up ^ Dunn, James D. G.; McKnight, Scot (2005). The historical Jesus in recent research Volume 10 of Sources for biblical and theological study. Eisenbrauns (EISENBRAUNS). p. 325. ISBN 1575061007.
66.Jump up ^ Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985. "John" p. 302-310
67.Jump up ^ "[T]here is no reason to think that Jesus was called God in the earliest layers of New Testament tradition." in "Does the New Testament call Jesus God?" in Theological Studies, 26, (1965) p. 545-73
68.Jump up ^ John Hick, The Metaphor of God Incarnate, page 27: "A further point of broad agreement among New Testament scholars ... is that the historical Jesus did not make the claim to deity that later Christian thought was to make for him: he did not understand himself to be God, or God the Son, incarnate. ... such evidence as there is has led the historians of the period to conclude, with an impressive degree of unanimity, that Jesus did not claim to be God incarnate."; Gerd Lüdemann, "An Embarrassing Misrepresentation", Free Inquiry, October / November 2007: "the broad consensus of modern New Testament scholars that the proclamation of Jesus' exalted nature was in large measure the creation of the earliest Christian communities."
69.^ Jump up to: a b "Jesus Christ." Cross, F. L., ed. The Oxford dictionary of the Christian church. New York: Oxford University Press. 2005
70.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j k l Funk, Robert W. and the Jesus Seminar. The acts of Jesus: the search for the authentic deeds of Jesus. HarperSanFrancisco. 1998.
71.Jump up ^ Crossan, John Dominic. The essential Jesus. Edison: Castle Books. 1998. p. 146
72.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g Funk, Robert W. and the Jesus Seminar. The acts of Jesus: the search for the authentic deeds of Jesus. HarperSanFrancisco. 1998. John the Baptist cameo. p. 268
73.Jump up ^ Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar. The five gospels. HarperSanFrancisco. 1993. p. 178
74.Jump up ^ See Matthew 11:7-10. Crossan, John Dominic. The essential Jesus. Edison: Castle Books. 1998. p. 146
75.Jump up ^ Mark 6:14, 16, 8:28
76.Jump up ^ Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985. "The Historical Jesus" p. 255-260
77.Jump up ^ following the conclusion of Josephus' Antiquities 18.5: "Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, (for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise,) thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it would be too late."
78.Jump up ^ Mark 7:24-30
79.Jump up ^ Introduction. Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar. The five gospels. HarperSanFrancisco. 1993.
80.Jump up ^ First: 2:13 and 2:23; second: 6:4; third: 11:55, 12:1, 13:1, 18:29, 18:39, 19:14
81.Jump up ^ Richard L. Niswonger, New Testament History, Zondervan, 1993, p. 152
82.Jump up ^ Geoffrey W. Bromiley, International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: A-D, Wm. B. Eerdmans 1995 p. 682
83.Jump up ^ The Fourth Gospel and the Quest for Jesus: Modern Foundations Reconsidered, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2006 p. 162
84.Jump up ^ Ehrman, Bart. Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. Oxford. 1999. page 127.
85.Jump up ^ Geza Vermes. The Authentic Gospels of Jesus. Penguin, 2003. p. 381.
86.Jump up ^ E. P. Sanders. The Historical Figure of Jesus. Penguin, 1993. p. 178
87.^ Jump up to: a b Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar. The five gospels. HarperSanFrancisco. 1993. "God's Imperial Rule: Present or Future," p 136-137.
88.^ Jump up to: a b c Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar. The five gospels. HarperSanFrancisco. 1993. Introduction, p 1-30.
89.Jump up ^ Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar. The five gospels. HarperSanFrancisco. 1993. pp. 103-104.
90.^ Jump up to: a b Ehrman, Bart. Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene: The Followers of Jesus in History and Legend. Oxford University Press, USA. 2006. ISBN 0-19-530013-0
91.Jump up ^ Bruce Chilton, Craig A. Evans, Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research (BRILL, 1998 ISBN 9004111425, 9789004111424), p. 136
92.Jump up ^ Catherine M. Murphy, The Historical Jesus for Dummies 2007 ISBN 0470167858, 9780470167854, p. 23
93.Jump up ^ Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar. The five gospels. HarperSanFrancisco. 1993. "Mark," p 39-127.
94.Jump up ^ Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar. The five gospels. HarperSanFrancisco. 1993.
95.Jump up ^ Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar. The five gospels. HarperSanFrancisco. 1993. page 221.
96.Jump up ^ Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar. The five gospels. HarperSanFrancisco. 1993. page 220.
97.Jump up ^ Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar. The five gospels. HarperSanFrancisco. 1993. page 221.
98.Jump up ^ Bart D. Ehrman, Fact and Fiction in the Da Vinci Code p.144
99.Jump up ^ Jewish Encyclopedia: Essenes: "The similarity in many respects between Christianity and Essenism is striking: There were the same communism (Acts iv. 34-35); the same belief in baptism or bathing, and in the power of prophecy; the same aversion to marriage, enhanced by firmer belief in the Messianic advent; the same system of organization, and the same rules for the traveling brethren delegated to charity-work (see Apostle and Apostleship); and, above all, the same love-feasts or brotherly meals (comp. Agape; Didascalia)."
100.Jump up ^ Sanders, E. P. The historical figure of Jesus. Penguin, 1993. p. 249
101.Jump up ^ Sanders 1987, p.[citation needed]
102.Jump up ^ The Jesus Seminar concurs that the temple incident led to Jesus' execution.
103.Jump up ^ The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church reports that "it is possible" that the temple disturbance led to Jesus' arrest, offers no alternative reason, and states more generally that a political rather than religious motivation was likely behind it. "Jesus Christ." Cross, F. L., ed. The Oxford dictionary of the Christian church. New York: Oxford University Press. 2005
104.Jump up ^ Ehrman 1999, p. 221-3
105.Jump up ^ Are You the One? The Textual Dynamics of Messianic Self-Identity
106.Jump up ^ Brown 1993, vol. 1, p. 711-12; Funk 1998, p. 152-3
107.Jump up ^ Barrett, CK 'The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes', Westminster John Knox Press, 1978, page 49, 'The alleged contraventions of Jewish law seem to rest upon misunderstandings of Jewish texts'
108.Jump up ^ Barrett, CK 'The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes', Westminster John Knox Press, 1978, pp. 49-50, 'The explanation is that special circumstances were regularly allowed to modify the course of the law. For example, Simeon b. Shetah (fl. 104-69 B.C.) caused to be hanged 80 women (witches) in one day, though it was against the law to judge more than two. 'The hour demanded it' (Sanhedrin 6.4, Y. Sanhedrin 6,235c,58). Nisan 15, so far from being an unlikely day, was one of the best possible days for the execution of Jesus. The regulation for the condemnation of a 'rebellious teacher' runs: 'He was kept in guard until one of the Feasts (passover, Pentecost, or Tabernacles) and he was put to death on one of the Feasts, for it is written, And all the people shall hear and fear, and do no more presumptuously (Deuteronomy 17.13)' (Sanhedrin 11.4). There was only one day on which 'all the people' were gathered together in Jerusalem for the Passover; it was Nisan 15, the Marcan date for the crucifixion.'
109.Jump up ^ Fredriksen, Paula. (2000) From Jesus to Christ: The Origins of the New Testament Images of Christ. Second Edition. Yale University Press. p. 122 ISBN 0300084579
110.Jump up ^ Craig A. Evans, "The Silence of Burial" in Jesus, the Final Days Ed. Troy A. Miller. p.68
111.Jump up ^ Crossan 1994, p. 154-158; cf. Ehrman 1999, p.229
112.Jump up ^ N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), p. 49; who wrote "[Crossan's hypothesis] has not been accepted yet by any other serious scholar."
113.Jump up ^ Ben Meyer, critical notice of The Historical Jesus, by John Dominic Crossan, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 55 (1993): 575
114.Jump up ^ Helmut Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels (London: SCM, 1990), p. 220.
115.Jump up ^ G. Habermas, The Historical Jesus, (College Press, 1996) p. 128; he observed that the Jewish polemic is recorded in Matthew 28:11-15 and was employed through the second century, cf. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 108; Tertullian, On Spectacles, 30
116.Jump up ^ G. Habermas, The Historical Jesus, (College Press, 1996) p. 173; cf. Vasilius Tzaferis, "Jewish Tombs At and Near Giv'at ha-Mivtar", Israel Exploration Journal 20 (1970) pp. 38-59".
117.Jump up ^ Brown 1993, vol. 2, ch. 46
118.Jump up ^ e.g. Paul L. Maier, "The Empty Tomb as History", in Christianity Today, March, 1975, p. 5
119.Jump up ^ Mark W. Waterman, The Empty Tomb Tradition of Mark: Text, History, and Theological Struggles (Los Angeles: Agathos Press, 2006) p. 211-212
120.Jump up ^ M. Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels (New York: Scribner's, 1977) p. 176
121.Jump up ^ Borg, Marcus J. "Thinking About Easter" Bible Review. April 1994, p. 15 and 49
122.Jump up ^ Theissen, Gerd; and Merz, Annette. The historical Jesus: A comprehensive guide. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. 1998. Tr from German (1996 edition). p. 503. ISBN 978-0-8006-3123-9
123.Jump up ^ Funk, Robert W (1998). The Acts of Jesus: The Search for the Authentic Deeds of Jesus. A Polebridge Press Book from Harper San Francisco. ISBN 0-06-062978-9.
124.Jump up ^ "Jesus Christ." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2007. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 10 Jan. 2007
125.^ Jump up to: a b Meier 1994 v.2 ch. 17; Ehrman 1999 p.227-8
126.Jump up ^ Georgi, Dieter (1986). The Opponents of Paul in Second Corinthians. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress.
127.Jump up ^ Georgi, Dieter (1991). Theocracy in Paul's Praxis and Theology. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress.
128.Jump up ^ The Quest for the Plausible Jesus: The Question of Criteria by Gerd Theissen and Dagmar Winter (Aug 30, 2002) ISBN 0664225373 pages 1-6
129.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j Criteria for Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research by Stanley E. Porter 2004 ISBN 0567043606 pages 100-120
130.^ Jump up to: a b The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology by Alan Richardson 1983 ISBN 0664227481 pages 215-216
131.^ Jump up to: a b Interpreting the New Testament by Daniel J. Harrington (Jun 1990) ISBN 0814651240 pages 96-98
132.Jump up ^ The Historical Jesus and the Final Judgment Sayings in Q by Brian Han Gregg (30 Jun 2006) ISBN 3161487508 page 29
133.Jump up ^ Criteria for Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research by Stanley E. Porter 2004 ISBN 0567043606 pages 77-78
134.Jump up ^ "Jesus Research and Archaeology: A New Perspective" by James H. Charlesworth in Jesus and archaeology edited by James H. Charlesworth 2006 ISBN 0-8028-4880-X pages 11-15
135.^ Jump up to: a b Soundings in the Religion of Jesus: Perspectives and Methods in Jewish and Christian Scholarship by Bruce Chilton Anthony Le Donne and Jacob Neusner 2012 ISBN 0800698010 page 132
136.Jump up ^ Mason, Steve (2002), "Josephus and the New Testament" (Baker Academic)
137.Jump up ^ Tabor, James (2012)"Paul and Jesus: How the Apostle Transformed Christianity" (Simon & Schuster)
138.Jump up ^ Eisenman, Robert (1998), "James the Brother of Jesus: The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls" (Watkins)
139.Jump up ^ Butz, Jeffrey "The Brother of Jesus and the Lost Teachings of Christianity" (Inner Traditions)
140.Jump up ^ Tabor, James (2007), "The Jesus Dynasty: The Hidden History of Jesus, His Royal Family, and the Birth of Christianity"
141.Jump up ^ "Introducing the Journal of Higher Criticism".
142.Jump up ^ Hendel, Ronald (June 2010). "Knowledge and Power in Biblical Scholarship". Retrieved 2011-01-06. "... The problem at hand is how to preserve the critical study of the Bible in a professional society that has lowered its standards to the degree that apologetics passes as scholarship ..."
143.Jump up ^ Meier, John. "Finding the Historical Jesus: An Interview With John P. Meier". St. Anthony Messenger. Retrieved Jan 6, 2011. "... I think a lot of the confusion comes from the fact that people claim they are doing a quest for the historical Jesus when de facto they’re doing theology, albeit a theology that is indeed historically informed."
144.Jump up ^ "Biography Clive Marsh".
145.Jump up ^ Clive Marsh "Quests of the Historical Jesus in New Historicist Perspective" in Biblical Interpretation Journal Volume 5, Number 4, 1997 , pp. 403-437(35)
146.Jump up ^ "Jesus is His Own Ideology: An Interview with Nick Perrin"."My point in the book is to disabuse readers of the notion that Jesus scholars are scientists wearing white lab coats. Like everyone else, they want certain things to be true about Jesus and equally want certain others not to be true of him. I’m included in this (I really hope that I am right in believing that Jesus is both Messiah and Lord.) Will this shape my scholarship? Absolutely. How can it not? We should be okay with that."
147.Jump up ^ McKnight, Scot (April 9, 2010). "The Jesus We'll Never Know". Retrieved Jan 15, 2011. "One has to wonder if the driving force behind much historical Jesus scholarship is ... a historian's genuine (and disinterested) interest in what really happened. The theological conclusions of those who pursue the historical Jesus simply correlate too strongly with their own theological predilections to suggest otherwise."
148.Jump up ^ Jesus Remembered Volume 1, by James D. G. Dunn 2003 ISBN 0-8028-3931-2 pp. 125-126: "the historical Jesus is properly speaking a nineteenth- and twentieth-century construction using the data supplied by the Synoptic tradition, not Jesus back then," (the Jesus of Nazareth who walked the hills of Galilee), "and not a figure in history whom we can realistically use to critique the portrayal of Jesus in the Synoptic tradition."
149.Jump up ^ Meir, Marginal Jew, 1:21-25
150.Jump up ^ T. Merrigan, The Historical Jesus in the Pluralist Theology of Religions, in The Myriad Christ: Plurality and the Quest for Unity in Contemporary Christology (ed. T. Merrigan and J. Haers). Princeton-Prague Symposium on Jesus Research, & Charlesworth, J. H. Jesus research: New methodologies and perceptions : the second Princeton-Prague Symposium on Jesus Research, Princeton 2007, p. 77-78: "Dunn points out as well that 'the Enlightenment Ideal of historical objectivity also projected a false goal onto the quest for the historical Jesus,' which implied that there was a 'historical Jesus,' objectively verifiable, 'who will be different from the dogmatic Christ and the Jesus of the Gospels and who will enable us to criticize the dogmatic Christ and the Jesus of the Gospels.' (Jesus Remembered, p. 125)."
151.Jump up ^ Herzog, W. R. (2005). Prophet and teacher: An introduction to the historical Jesus. Louisville, Ky: Westminster John Knox Press. p. 6
152.Jump up ^ Akenson, Donald (1998). Surpassing wonder: the invention of the Bible and the Talmuds. University of Chicago Press. pp. 539–555. ISBN 978-0-226-01073-1. Retrieved Jan 8, 2011. "... The point I shall argue below is that, the agreed evidentiary practices of the historians of Yeshua, despite their best efforts, have not been those of sound historical practice ..."
153.Jump up ^ "Queen's University:Department of History". Retrieved Jan 22, 2011. "Don Akenson: Professor Irish Studies"
154.Jump up ^ Dunn, James (2003). Christianity In the Making Volume 1: Jesus Remembered. Cambridge, MA: Eermans. p. 126.
155.Jump up ^ Jesus Remembered, by James Dunn; p.102
156.Jump up ^ Jesus the Christ by Walter Kasper (Nov 1976) ISBN page 31
157.Jump up ^ Theological Hermeneutics by Angus Paddison (Jun 6, 2005) ISBN 0521849837 Cambridge Univ Press page 43
158.Jump up ^ The Historical Jesus by John Dominic Crossan (Feb 26, 1993) ISBN 0060616296 page xviii
159.Jump up ^ The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament by Andreas J. Köstenberger, L. Scott Kellum 2009 ISBN 978-0-8054-4365-3 pages 117–125
160.Jump up ^ Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium by Bart D. Ehrman 1999 ISBN 0-19-512473-1 pages 22–23
161.Jump up ^ Bart Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? Harper Collins, 2012, p. 12, ""In simpler terms, the historical Jesus did not exist . Or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity." further quoting as authoritative the fuller definition provided by Earl Doherty in Jesus: Neither God Nor Man. Age of Reason, 2009, pp. vii–viii: it is "the theory that no historical Jesus worthy of the name existed, that Christianity began with a belief in a spiritual, mythical figure, that the Gospels are essentially allegory and fiction, and that no single identifiable person lay at the root of the Galilean preaching tradition."
162.Jump up ^ "Jesus Outside the New Testament" Robert E. Van Voorst, 2000, p=8-9
163.Jump up ^ Richard Dawkins. The God Delusion. p. 122. ISBN 1-4303-1230-0.
164.Jump up ^ God is Not Great, Christopher Hitchens, 2007, Chapter 8
165.Jump up ^ "The Messiah Myth: The Near Eastern Roots of Jesus and David" Thomas L. Thompson Basic Book Perseus Books' 2005
166.Jump up ^ Did Jesus exist?, Bart Ehrman, 2012, Chapter 1
References[edit]
Barnett, Paul W. (1997). Jesus and the Logic of History (New Studies in Biblical Theology 3). Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press. ISBN 0-85111-512-8.
Bauckham, Richard (2011). Jesus: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-957527-4.
Brown, Raymond E. (1993). The Death of the Messiah: from Gethsemane to the Grave. New York: Anchor Bible. ISBN 0-385-49449-1.
Brown, Raymond E. et al. The New Jerome Biblical Commentary Prentice Hall 1990 ISBN 0-13-614934-0
Bock, Darrell L., Studying the Historical Jesus: A Guide to Sources and Methods.. Baker Academic: 2002. ISBN 978-0-8010-2451-1.
Craffert, Pieter F. and Botha, Pieter J. J. "Why Jesus Could Walk On The Sea But He Could Not Read And Write". Neotestamenica. 39.1, 2005.
Crossan, John Dominic. Jesus : A Revolutionary Biography. Harpercollins: 1994. ISBN 0-06-061661-X.
Dickson, John. Jesus: A Short Life, Lion Hudson plc, 2008, ISBN 0-8254-7802-2, ISBN 978-0-8254-7802-4, Google Books
Ehrman, Bart D. (1999). Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. New York: Oxford. ISBN 0-19-512473-1.
Fiensy, David A.; Jesus the Galilean: soundings in a first century life, Gorgias Press LLC, 2007, ISBN 1-59333-313-7, ISBN 978-1-59333-313-3, Google books
Fredriksen, Paula (2000). Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews: A Jewish Life and the Emergence of Christianity. New York: Vintage Books. ISBN 978-0-679-76746-6.
Gnilka, Joachim.; Jesus of Nazareth: Message and History, Hendrickson Publishers, 1997.
Gowler, David B.; What Are They Saying About the Historical Jesus?, Paulist Press, 2007,
Grant, Michael. Jesus: A Historian's Review of the Gospels. Scribner's, 1977. ISBN 0-684-14889-7.
Funk, Robert W. (1998). The Acts of Jesus: The Search for the Authentic Deeds of Jesus. HarperSanFrancisco. ISBN 0-06-062978-9.
Harris, by William V. Ancient Literacy. Harvard University Press: 1989. ISBN 0-674-03380-9.
Meier, John P., A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Doubleday,
v. 1, The Roots of the Problem and the Person, 1991, ISBN 0-385-26425-9v. 2, Mentor, Message, and Miracles, 1994, ISBN 0-385-46992-6v. 3, Companions and Competitors, 2001, ISBN 0-385-46993-4v. 4, Law and Love, 2009, ISBN 978-0-300-14096-5O'Collins, G. Jesus: A Portrait. Darton, Longman and Todd: 2008. ISBN 978-0232527193
O'Collins, G. Christology: A Biblical, Historical, and Systematic Study of Jesus. OUP: 2009. ISBN 978-0199557875
Sanders, E.P. Jesus and Judaism. Augsburg Fortress Publishers: 1987.
Sanders, E.P. The Historical Figure of Jesus. Lane The Penguin Press: 1993.
Vermes, G. Jesus the Jew: A Historian's Reading of the Gospels. SCM Classics:2001, ISBN 0-334-02839-6
Theissen, Gerd and Merz, Annette. The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide. Fortress Press: Minneapolis, 1998. ISBN 0-8006-3122-6.
Van Voorst, Robert E., Jesus Outside the New Testament, 2000, Eerdmans, google books
Witherington III, Ben. The Jesus Quest: The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth. InterVarsity Press: 1997. ISBN 0-8308-1544-9.
Wright, N.T. Christian Origins and the Question of God, a projected six volume series of which three have been published under:
v. 1, The New Testament and the People of God. Augsburg Fortress Publishers: 1992.;v. 2, Jesus and the Victory of God. Augsburg Fortress Publishers: 1997.;v. 3, The Resurrection of the Son of God. Augsburg Fortress Publishers: 2003.Wright, N.T. The Challenge of Jesus: Rediscovering who Jesus was and is. IVP 1996
Yaghjian, Lucretia. "Ancient Reading", in Richard Rohrbaugh, ed., The Social Sciences in New Testament Interpretation. Hendrickson Publishers: 2004. ISBN 1-56563-410-1.
External links[edit]
"Jesus Christ". Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 2009. The first section, on Jesus' life and ministry



[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Jesus








































































































































Commons page
Wikiquote page





[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
The Bible and history















Bible.malmesbury.arp.jpg


































  



Categories: Jesus and history
Perspectives on Jesus



















Navigation menu




Create account
Log in




Article

Talk












Read

Edit

View history

























Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
العربية
Català
Čeština
Dansk
Deutsch
Esperanto
Français
한국어
Hrvatski
Bahasa Indonesia
Interlingua
Italiano
Nederlands
日本語
Nordfriisk
Plattdüütsch
Polski
Português
Română
Русский
Српски / srpski
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Suomi
Edit links
This page was last modified on 18 June 2015, at 13:54.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
    
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus