Posted on 06/15/2010 8:15:51 AM PDT by markomalley
I’ve already lamented the demise of the once-delightful Column One feature on the front page of the Los Angeles Times. And I feel that I’ve dissected more than my tolerable share of articles by Mitchell Landsberg, the LAT’s recently new scribe on the Godbeat; add to that Mollie’s commentary yesterday on Landsberg’s Vatican coverage.
I’ve really tried to show him some grace as he warms up to religion reporting. But it’s been several months and I couldn’t avoid discussing this Column One, “Community service is the religion,” which wastes no time violating a cardinal rule of religion reporting. Here’s the fourth paragraph:
Fulford, a social worker for San Diego County, is in daily contact with the homeless, the formerly homeless and the soon-to-be homeless. But this encounter was not part of her job — not her paying job, anyway. Fulford spends 30 to 40 hours a week volunteering as the leader of a ministry for homeless people for the Rock Church, a fundamentalist megachurch in Point Loma that is making its mark as a powerhouse of community service as well as evangelism.
If you guessed that the Rock isn’t a funadamentalist megachurch but an evangelical megachurch than you’re right. I know, the headline kind of gave it away.
There is, of course, a difference. A BIG difference. For those who have forgotten, which likely isn’t many GetReligion loyalists, some evangelicals are fundamentalists — think Pat Robertson or the late Jerry Falwell — but certainly not even close to all of them. As Christianity Today explained in a “Did You Know?” about the new evangelical awakening:
This modern form of evangelicalism began, therefore, as a kind of reform movement within fundamentalism. In the beginning years (the period much of this issue covers) the terms “fundamentalist” and “evangelical” were interchangeable. But eventually, the lines of division hardened.
Today, the terms usually refer to two different groups, ultra-conservative Christians (fundamentalists) and those who take a more engaged approach to modern culture (evangelicals). Both, however, share the same family tree.
As the AP Stylebook says:
In recent years, however, fundamentalist has to a large extent taken on pejorative connotations except when applied to groups that stress strict, literal interpretations of Scripture and separation from other Christians. In general, do not use fundamentalist unless a group applies the word to itself.
Which begs the question: How does The Rock identify itself?
Unfortunately, if you go to the church’s Web site, you are not greeted with a “Welcome to The Rock!” You can, however, see the church’s Beliefs and Statement of Faith, which are clearly evangelical. The church’s Wikipedia entry begins “The Rock Church is a non-denominational, evangelical Christian megachurch located in San Diego, California.” Though The Rock likely monitors that page, let’s not put too much stock in that assessment.
As you may recall from the beginning of the Carrie Prejean saga, Miss California was a member of The Rock Church. And as I mentioned at the time, the church is evangelical, maybe even socially and theologically conservative, but not fundamentalist.
Nowhere in The Rock’s literature does the church identify itself as fundamentalist, nor can I believe that its pastor, Miles McPherson, would have told Landsberg is was — that would hardly be a popular thing to do.
And, would you believe it, Landsberg later says that The Rock’s programs “have a strong evangelical undercurrent.”
As The New York Times recognized four years ago, evangelicals have been long uncomfortable with the confused connections that the uninformed draw between evangelicals and fundamentalists. Even before that, when I came on the Godbeat, this was one of the first lessons I learned.
This isn’t quite like calling a Sunni a Shiite, but it is an important distinct that gets to the heart of good journalism: attention to detail. And like every reporter learns the first time they misspell a name, if you can’t get the little things right, readers aren’t willing to trust you with the big things.
The average dimwit thinks “fundamentalist” is a catch-all term for anyone with whom he disagrees on social issues.
“fundamentalists — think Pat Robertson or the late Jerry Falwell”
don’t post anti-protestant hitpieces please.
Actually, I thought it was an anti-media hit piece.
Or would you rather I not post something against the media.
That might be how the AP Stylebook defines it, but the term originated with the Presbyterians' Doctrinal Deliverance of 1910 , more commonly known as the Five Fundamentals of the [Christian] Faith:
The term [Fundamentalism] was born when conservative Protestants in early-20th-century America committed themselves to defend the five "fundamentals" of their faith -- the inerrancy of the Bible, virgin birth and deity of Jesus, doctrine of atonement, bodily resurrection of Jesus, and His imminent return.I find that a great many Catholic laypersons, apologists, priests, and bishops still use the term as a bigoted perjorative (see for example: Mark Shea, and the National Catholic Reporter's John L. Allen Jr).
-- from the thread The many forms of fundamentalism
Hmmm. I’ll bet there’s some ulterior motive for ‘evangelism’ being preferred over ‘fundamentalism’.
I would bet that ‘fundamentalism’ is a greater threat to the NWO, while ‘evangelism’ is more manageable.
JMO
BTW, one other point: the author of the piece is Presbyterian.
"Reformed/Protestant" (16th century, those that trace denominational and creedal roots back to the Reformation),
"Evangelical" (17th century, like xzins' Wesleyans/Methodists or the Baptists, largely anabaptist, that arose after the Reformed groups);
"Restorationist" (19th century, independent "first century style" churches / denominations that can be traced back to the Stone/Campbell movement in NY's Hudson River valley); and
"Charismatic" (20th century, any "Spirit-led" but anti-creedal church or denomination that followed or appeared alongside the Restorationists, but especially those that originated with the "baby boomer" generation i.e. the Calvary Chapel/Vineyard churches).I'm honestly not sure where I'd place groups like the "emergent churches" or even the Warren / Osteen style megachurches. They lack the strong theological distinctives (Calvinism, creedalism) that characterizes the earlier groups, and the strong cultural distinctives (display of charismatic gifts, fierce cultural isolationism) that characterizes the later groups. I tend to think that they should get their own category, but I usually lump them under the "evangelical" label because they usually associate themselves with that group socially.
BTW, one question on that. Would you categorize groups like (i.e., including but not limited to) LDS, Adventists, and Jehovah's Witnesses in with the "Restorationist" crowd? (since they share the belief that Christianity had become totally corrupt and was only restored by way of their latter day prophet (or whatever they call their "inspired one")
Please keep in mind that a Presbyterian wrote the piece, not a Catholic.
In fact, the authors of that blog are Presbyterian (2), Lutheran (2), Episcopal (1), Eastern Orthodox (1), and Church of Christ (1).
If you would like to post a legitimate news piece about the majority of Catholics in Florida being against priestly celibacy, have at it.
In fact, I bet you can, with a few quick mouse-clicks, find that within a “Catholic” source (I would suggest the National Catholic Reporter or America magazine).
Frankly, the only “Catholic” pieces that I have a problem with are ones that use “Romanist” or “Papist” rather than Catholic, or ones that would identify us with the “Whore of Babylon” or whatever. And that’s just because it’s hard to take something serious along those lines.
In all honesty, I generally ping the list owner for the confession when I post something about their confession (e.g., the Traditional Anglican list for something about ECUSA, or the Lutheran list for something about ELCA, LCMS, WELS, or the like. And, of course, I will ping the appropriate folks if I put something up that is charismatic in topic or apocalyptic in topic. I haven’t posted anything in a long time about the various Presbyterian sects, but I would likely ping the owner of the GRPL if I did) Is there a general “evangelical” or “fundamentalist” ping list out there that I can alert this to?
Again, my motive is not to post this as a hit piece against either evangelicals or fundamentalists (regardless of the differences I have with either group), but as an informational thing showing how wrong the MSM can get. I, frankly, don’t intend to stop doing so.
If I post a hit piece, you will *know* it is a hit piece and won’t have to dig, trust me on that one. Not that I plan to do so, but if I were to do so, there would be no doubt in anybody’s mind.
Using their methodology, there are 242 Catholic denominations. Hello????
If you use a more realistic measure, you would find that the number is somewhere around 1,000 or so. And that is even making distinctions between different flavors of Lutheran, Presbyterian, Episcopal, Baptist, etc.
I feel very uncomfortable using that 30,000 number though. I think the point can be made without resorting to the inflationary techniques used to develop the 30,000 figure.
In the process of writing a history of evangelicalism he came to hold that the whole category of "evangelical" (in the modern sense) wasn't useful.
don’t post anti-protestant hitpieces please.Actually, I thought it was an anti-media hit piece.
Yup. I basically don't trust anything I read from the MSM on the subject. Unless the reporter is in, is some sort or believer, they just won't have the categories.
If you're going to write an article about why "fundamentalist" and "evangelical" are not interchangeable, it would be helpful if you defined what those words mean, and how they differ.
(I note that the AP stylebook provides a very rough definition of fundamentalist, and by extension one supposes you define evangelicals as "not like them.")
Just a suggestion....
Why then are there that many volumes of Pub 78 ? Years ago it was 9 volumes but I wager it is more now. Most Catholic institutions tend to use the same EIN number but some have applied for their individual number. Each of these volumes is quite thick and the print is small. There are some secular non profit entities listed but while perusing pages years ago I noticed that the protestant churches are quite evident on randomly selected pages I made from several volumes. To obtain a number the entity must furnish and update their information some of which informs the reader of religious affiliation. I did not look at the documentation so I can not categorically state that there was not some affiliation between each entry. That would take a lifetime of research.
Which subject would that be?
Protestant (loosely construed) Christianity?
Catholic Christianity?
Christianity in general?
All I can say is be consistent then and identify each diocese in the world as its own denomination (both RC, EC, EO, and OO). There would, by the measure used by this group that developed the 30,000 (or 39,000 now) denominations, be somewhere over 8,000 denominations of Catholics and Orthodox. You and I both know that isn’t right.
One other thing to consider regarding pub 78. My Knights of Columbus council has a charitable corporation that is registered in Pub 78. There are pages upon pages of Knights of Columbus organizations registered in that pub. How many Knights of Columbus fraternal benefit organizations are there? To my knowledge, just one. Even though each council is incorporated on its own, they are part of one large organization. I think you would see the same thing with any number of outfits that have independent chapters.
You want to use “30,000” — go ahead. But just think: they have every right in the world to come back with “3,000” Roman Catholic denominations...using the same measure. And don’t ever complain if one of them does so, because they’ll be consistent with the measure you used.
Yeah. That's why you don't see me post too many *hit pieces*
I think the last authentic *hit piece* I posted was when I went through the various Protestant confessions of faith and pulled out their statements that the Pope was the antichrist. (Mind you, that's current statements of faith, not historical ones) -- and that was years ago that I did that one.
Hey, I'm Catholic. If I want to get daggers and endless undead threads, all I have to do is post an open thread about Mary, relics, Papal infallibility, the Eucharist, or something else that is authentically Catholic...and I'll have Protestants respond to me for months (literally) that I'm in error.
I don't need to do a hit piece to generate responses...
christianity in general
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.