Misperceptions of Evangelicals

Choir.jpgWe’re living in days where false images of evangelicals abound. The knack here is not to play the victim card and start blaming everyone else. The knack is to describe the scene. Which leads me to a new book…

Steve Wilkens and Don Thorsen, both profs at Azusa Pacific, have a new book that takes on misperceptions of evangelicals. I like the title: Everything You Know about Evangelicals Is Wrong (Well, Almost Everything): An Insider’s Look at Myths and Realities
.
I’m announcing an upcoming series on this book, but for today I want to do things: (1) list their misperceptions and (2) ask you what you think are the biggest misperceptions of evangelicals.
Here is the list of topics for the chapters:
1. All are mean, stupid and dogmatic
2. All waiting for the rapture
3. All anti-evolutionists
4. All inerrantists
5. All rich Americans
6. All are Calvinists
7. All are Republicans
8. All are racist, sexist and homophobes
About Scot McKnight

Scot McKnight is a recognized authority on the New Testament, early Christianity, and the historical Jesus. McKnight, author of more than forty books, is the Professor of New Testament at Northern Seminary in Lombard, IL.

  • Barb

    –all refuse to allow women a role in church leadership

  • Kenny johnson

    All never question their beliefs or have doubts

  • Joshua Wooden

    That list seems to sum it all up as far as I can tell. Personally, I don’t know anyone who say All Evangelicals Are… anything. But something must account for the stereotype(s), don’t you think?

  • Andrew

    I don’t know that it’s ever fair to make blanket statements even though my gut reaction is to say that all Evangelicals fall in to at least one of these categories. However, “evangelical” is such a loose term. I know of a person who is the exact opposite of all of these things but yet considers himself an evangelical because he isn’t an RC or orthodox. That being said, I hope the authors first include a defintion to base their findings off of.

  • phil_style

    Joshua hits the nail on the head. I don’t believe there are “misconceptions” regarding ALL evangelicals, but rather some strong stereotypes that are held. Rather than find the individual cases that prove the “all” statements to be false, the write should try to show whether or not there are strong trends that confirm stereotypes.
    Is there a strong/majority trend of “anti-evolution” within evangelicalism? Is there a strong/majority trend of waiting for the rapture? etc.. with all the others.
    I think this would be more valuable an excercise than simply going after the obviously flawed “all are” statements.

  • Josiah

    So..uhh..why is this important? If we are doing our job as christians, people will hate us, and no touchy-feely “just listen to us” compromising book will change that.

  • DRT

    I would like to add judgmental to the end of 1.
    All are mean, stupid, dogmatic and judgmental.
    I also want to add another, Superior or Arrogant, condemnatory of others
    Ha! I was hoping for a good Captcha: bestow South – perhaps Al M should listen.

  • whoschad

    I consider myself an evangelical and I’m not any of those (except number 1 of course). I’m glad someone is pointing this stuff out.

  • Jason Lee

    …some of the ones I hear are. All Evangelicals are:
    -anti-intellectual (another variation on stupid)
    -anti-environment (Evangelicals basically want to black top the earth)
    -war mongers
    -pro capital punishment (a variation on racist)
    -pro Wal-Mart (ie pro unbridled capitalism and anti-poor)
    -pro suburban and anti-urban (also pro chain business and anti local business)
    -and finally, Evangelicals are just basically another word for Right Wing Authoritarians (they do what they’re told and crack down on deviants)
    …it all kind of reminds me of early church Christians being accused of hanky-panky at their love feasts, etc… Didn’t some church leaders clearly speak to non-Christians about the fact that this was not so. Why don’t prominent Evangelical leaders use their voice to refute some of these accusations?

  • Joshua Wooden

    Josiah- interesting perspective- I hadn’t considered that when I commented. I’ve got to say, though, that I don’t think others’ hatred of us ought to serve as a ruler for measuring our faithfulness to Jesus. If people hate us because we are remaining faithful to Jesus, calling the world to action and accountability, then that’s one thing. But many people hate Christians (in this case, Evangelical Christians), for just about anything other than Christians’ faithfulness and, more importantly, their love. I’m born and raised as an Evangelical, consider myself one (in the traditional sense of the term), and I have to say- the stereotypes hold pretty well for my immediate and not-so-immediate experience. I don’t think it’s really a comfort that someone has to write an enitire book trying to dispel stereotypes that are still kind of true even if not for everyone. I think it matters because I think that Christians ought to understand what the stereotypes are, and seek to be faithful to Jesus in a way that doesn’t add unnecessary baggage to the title of Christian and, in doing so, add baggage to the gospel itself. I’m not sure I would say that this book is “compromising,” but it seems to me that it is ill-conceived.
    DRT @ #7: nice addition- I agree.

  • Kristin

    Well then, I guess I am not evangelical by these standards! No wonder why I feel like a black sheep in my community…

  • AJ

    I’ve heard those that Jason listed. I’ve also heard that evangelicals believe liberals are not really Christians. This is a hot one in my town.

  • Jason Lee

    Joshua has a good point. Many of these stereotypes are hard to dismiss. Especially anti-evolutionist, inerrantist, racist, sexist, anti-homosexuality, Republican. Also, some of the ones I listed probably have some truth to them too. I’m talking in broad strokes … eg, Evangelicals are majority pro Wal-Mart.

  • Robin

    Since statistics indicate that evangelicals are more likely to be southern and midwestern, I wonder how much of these stereotypes should just be Southern=racist instead of evangelical=racist. I live in the south and culturally, I would say baptists where I grew up are no more likely to be racists than methodists. My dad left the methodist church when the deacons in his church beat up some freedom riders on their way down south.
    It seems that attaching southern stereotypes to evangelicals can serve as a convenient way to bash evangelicals.
    I work with a lot of people with doctorate degrees that are either RC or mainline and the thing I hear over and over again is the education factor. They think evangelicals are stupid and constantly make fun of home school.

  • Robin

    On the republican issue. I have known a ton of Christians that I am convinced would vote democrat because they like their positions on health care, unemployment, welfare, immigration, etc.; the only thing that has stopped them is the democratic party’s unconditional support for increasing abortion rights.

  • All or Nothing

    If you substitute Most for All then I think the list is much more useful. If you use “All,” then one democrat destroys the “‘misperception.”
    If you use “most,” then it’s safe to say you’ve got 3-7 in the bag. (e.g. most ARE rich relative to the world’s population and middle class relative to American standards). 1, 2 and 8 are more difficult.

  • Jason Lee

    Robin:
    I agree with you and think there’s a lot of Southernness that’s driving the Evangelical patterns (too much culture and not enough Christ).
    That said, I’d imagine you’re still going to find differences by religious group within the South. Mainline Protestants are going to lean left on more things and have more education. Mainliners have their subcultural centers outside the South in many cases. This likely balances them culturally. Evangelicals typically have their subcultural centers in the South, tying them to the culture of the South. Evangelicals in the North forget just how many of their brethren are located in the South or grew up there, and how much of the Evangelical financial power is in places like Georgia and Texas.

  • Robin

    Jason,
    I think you might be right when you’re talking about Birmingham, Atlanta, and other cities with more than 50,000 people, but when you get into rural parts I’m not so sure. I grew up as a catholic in a county with around 10,000 people and I don’t think I could have told you any difference among the protestants in my 97% protestant county.
    I turned 18 in 1997 so it wasn’t that long ago.
    I could have told you that the church of Christ forbade musical instruments, believed baptism guaranteed salvation, and thought they could be traced back directly to apostolic times somehow, but I couldn’t tell a bit of difference between the Baptists, Methodists, and Presbyterians. (We didn’t have any Lutherans or Episcopalians in that part of Kentucky).

  • Jason Lee

    That said, there is a big research literature showing that there is an “Evangelical effect” on a variety of outcomes like some of the ones list here. They find an Evangelical effect even after controlling for things such as Southern residence, gender, education, income, race, church attendance, and Biblical literalism. This indicates that there is sometimes an Evangelical subcultural effect net of South, etc… This is why Bradley Wright’s book is interesting. I’m interested to have a look at it and see how he controls for things.

  • Hank

    I consider myself an evangelical, and I voted Democrat in the last two elections. This fact shocks my more mainline friends.

  • http://www.chipanderson.blogspot.com Chip Anderson

    I think their list is accurate in that these are misconceptions. To prove the point, I am only a 2.5 out of 8. You guess which ones.

  • http://wyattroberts.blogspot.com Wyatt Roberts

    Unfortunately, most of the items in that list would apply to many, if not most, of the Christians in the town where I live — Florence, Mississippi. That’s been my experience, anyway. Within the context of small-town, deep South Christianity, disbelief in the rapture or a literal six-day creation is considered heretical.

  • JHM

    It seems to me that the misperception is more to do with the degree to which Evangelicals characterized by these things and as to *why* Evangelicals believe what they do.
    If an Evangelical thinks homosexuality is a sin, it surely must follow that they are bigoted, mean, sexist, and racist, and generally just don’t like people.
    If an Evangelical votes mostly votes Republican, it surely must follow that they are rich, for the oppression of the poor, want to rape the earth of any and all resources, and love to start wars whenever possible.
    If an Evangelical is waiting for the rapture, is an inerrantist (whatever that might mean), and a Calvinist, it surely must follow that they are arrogant, heartless towards missional living, and generally have never wrestled with Scripture in any remotely academic way.
    If an Evangelical loves Wal-mart, it couldn’t possibly be because they are in hard times or *gasp* in grad school and need a place to get cheap goods. :-)
    I think it’s great to have a conversation about misperceptions, but it seems like it so often goes down the road of “these are misperceptions because Evangelicals don’t think anything remotely like this” rather than “these are misperceptions because they are exaggerated and don’t properly understand the reason why people believe what they do”

  • dopderbeck

    Yawn. All of this is just a word game. Sure, if people like, say, Tony Campolo or Tony Jones are “evangelicals,” then not all evangelicals are “inerrantists” or “Republicans”. But, of course, the Evangelical Theological Society and the Evangelical Philosophical Society insist that all real evangelicals must be inerrantists, and a huge variety of politically conservative evangelicals insist that all real evangelicals must be politcally conservative.
    It all depends on who you ask and how the word “evangelical” gets defined, doesn’t it?

  • Pat

    I think there are two misperceptions: 1) that we’re all judgmental and 2) that ALL of us are anything. As is true with stereotypes, not ALL of any one group is one way. That’s what makes stereotypes so maddening. I guess it’s our tendency as human beings to focus on the negative and extract that out to the whole.

  • AHH

    Seeing #3 and #4 on the “misperception” list is interesting.
    There are MANY evangelicals who see #4 (inerrancy) as part of the definition of what it means to BE an evangelical. There are many evangelicals for whom thinking that God used evolution to create (#3) would put one out of the fold.
    For example I suspect Al Mohler might say that #3 and especially #4 are not misperceptions at all, but simply part of what it means to be an evangelical. Others of us would use a broader definition of the term (maybe seeing #3 and especially #4 as defining features of the “fundamentalist” subset of evangelicalism).
    I still consider myself an evangelical, but many more conservative evangelicals would not consider me as part of their club. Like with many other terms, the definition varies among those who use it.
    As far as the biggest misperception among the general public, I think a lot of people outside the church now think of “evangelical” as a label for a set of political positions (so #7 and some of #8). We can thank Dobson, Falwell, et al. for that, along with media who go along with that simplistic storyline.

  • http://asthedeer.com Chris

    I think #1 on the list is the biggest perception of conservatives & evangelicals by those outside their community.
    I have moved in mainline Protestant circles for twenty years, and I have found the animosity toward conservatives & evangelicals to be growing. It has become troubling to me. I have concluded that this animosity toward conservatives is a kind of bigotry. I have to be careful what blogs and listservs I read because the prejudice against conservatives is so free and pervasive, and it gives me a headache.

  • Robin

    Chris,
    as a mainliner, what would you say is the source of the animosity? Is it that mainliners think evangelicals are mean? Is it different political positions, perceptions over church growth trends? What do you think it is. If you could list the top 2 or 3 reasons you think mainliners have animosity to towards evangelicals I think it would be helpful. And if it is just “they think evangelicals are hateful” then what is the issues about which they are primarily hateful?

  • Danny

    It seems only those Evangelicals who are of a particular “ahem” political persuasion are the “bad” ones. The more enlightened ones are OK.

  • http://evangelicalmonk.com Bill

    A great posting for discussion. AHH @#26 makes a perceptive observation, that the popular misconception is defining evangelicals by a political/cultural stance. Not to say there is not some merit to it, as he said, people in the forefront, Dobson, Falwell, etc. (who are clearly not representative for anyone other than their particular ministries) are taken as the spokespersons. Like the balance after the shots evangelicals have taken in the Christ Among the Dragons series.
    #24 – word games aren’t something to toss aside – Wittgenstein, Hauerwas and Derrida have spoken much about “language/word games” and the formative power of such things – isn’t this an example of that power?

  • RJS

    Danny (#29),
    No – it isn’t that only evangelicals of one political persuasion are the ‘bad’ ones. The problem is equating evangelical with political persuasion.
    Given that my family has always been split on these political issues, with a Baptist preacher uncle, father and others who lean (occasionally more than lean) democrat and a mother, grandfather, evangelical free pastor uncle, and more who are rather strong republican, this stereotype never struck home with me. All are evangelical Christian by any other significant definition (practice and faith).

  • DRT

    #25 Pat. Following up on the negative and positive thing, it seems to me that, by and large, one can feel negative feelings toward a group, but it is hard to have positive feelings toward a group. This is different than conceptions or thoughts, it is feelings.
    People are feeling creatures (well, perhaps not evangelicals), so negative feelings get put with groups, and positive ones with individuals.

  • Danny

    RJS @31, Fair enough, but I think it’s pretty clear from the majority of the posts here that if one is on one side of the political spectrum they are viewed in a negative light much as described in the original post. Just read the postings over the last day or two. To be more blunt, liberal (or progressive) democrat-voting Christians line up generally on the one side and conservative republican-voting Christian on the other. If we only had a survey to gauge our theological/political affiliation …

  • RJS

    Danny,
    I disagree here too. We collectively have absolutely horrible manners on anything political. I have decided to stay out of political discussion on this blog because there is no way to make either side behave and converse. Everyone (an over generalization I realize) takes self justified offense at any perceived slight and considers it a weakness to consider a variety of view points.
    It makes the science/evolution discussion downright tame and civil by all standards.

  • Danny

    RJS, OK. I agree with you on that.

  • Kenny Johnson

    On the whole Republican thing. I think that 10 years ago that perception may have been more true. I know when I first started going to church I was (and still am) a registered Democrat. I started going to a small group (1st one) and it happened to meet on Tuesdays — this particular Tuesday was election night 2000. Some people there were talking about it and I mentioned I voted for Gore…. stunned silence. Around the same time, I had a friend (previous co-worker) who was (and I imagine still is) a very conservative Republican and very conservative Christian. After I meeting with him again after starting to go to church, he told me that my faith would lead me to the Republican party. It never happened.
    Obviously these are anecdotal, but I was certainly the odd man out in a lot of the Evangelical circles I traveled in because of my political beliefs. I was never excluded or not loved though (at least that I’m aware of!).
    I sense that has changed though. I talk to more and more Christians who are either not Republicans or if they are, aren’t single issue (abortion) voters.

  • dopderbeck

    If “Evangelicals” can be all these different things, I’m still looking for a meaningful, working definition of “Evangelical.” Yes, we could use Bebbington’s criteria, but why those? It seems to me that we either have to admit that some of these criticisms are actually true — not just misperceptions — or we have to acknowledge that the term “Evangelical” has become a wax nose.

  • Kenny Johnson

    dopderbeck,
    I would hold to the Evangelical Manifesto’s definition:
    http://www.anevangelicalmanifesto.com/docs/Evangelical_Manifesto_Summary.pdf
    “First, we reaffirm our identity. Evangelicals are Christians who define themselves, their faith, and their lives according to the Good News of Jesus of Nazareth. (The Greek word for good news was euangelion, which translated into English as evangel.) This Evangelical principle is the heart of who we are as followers of Jesus. It is not unique to us. We assert it not to attack or to exclude, but to remind and to reaffirm, and so to rally and to reform.
    Evangelicals are one of the great traditions in the Christian Church. We stand alongside Christians of other traditions in both the creedal core of faith and over many issues of public concern. Yet we also hold to Evangelical beliefs that are distinct—distinctions we affirm as matters of biblical truth, recovered by the Protestant Reformation and vital for a sure knowledge of God. We Evangelicals are defined theologically, and not politically, socially, or culturally.
    As followers of Jesus Christ, Evangelicals stress a particular set of beliefs that we believe are true to the life and teachings of Jesus himself. Taken together, they make us who we are. We place our emphasis on …
    1.
    Jesus, fully divine and fully human, as the only full and complete revelation of God and therefore the only Savior.
    2.
    The death of Jesus on the cross, in which he took the penalty for our sins and reconciled us to God.
    3.
    Salvation as God’s gift grasped through faith. We contribute nothing to our salvation.
    4.
    New life in the Holy Spirit, who brings us spiritual rebirth and power to live as Jesus did, reaching out to the poor, sick, and oppressed.
    5.
    The Bible as God’s Word written, fully trustworthy as our final guide to faith and practice.
    6.
    The future personal return of Jesus to establish the reign of God.
    7.
    The importance of sharing these beliefs so that others may experience God’s salvation and may walk in Jesus’ way.
    Sadly, we repeatedly fail to live up to our high calling, and all too often illustrate our own doctrine of sin. The full list of our failures is no secret to God or to many who watch us. If we would share the good news of Jesus with others, we must first be shaped by that good news ourselves

  • Ted

    Well, many of these are “stereoypes” for a reason, they are very often true. Evangelicals are often Republican, abortion and other social issues being driving them there. It has often been the case that I liked a Democtratic candidates positions on many issues, but could not in good concience vote for him/her because of their stance on abortion. I think that is why so many americans wish there was another cboice, another party, that was like many democrats on social issues, except abortion, and like republicans (the old Repulicans) on financial issues.
    And when a leader in the largest evangelical denomination states that six 24 hour days of creation is the only acceptable position Christians can take toward Genesis, well, that feeds several stereotypes all at once, including the notion that Evangelicals are becoming members of a modern day version of the flat earth society science wise.

  • http://evangelicalmonk.com Bill

    dopderbeck
    I tend to see Bebbington’s criteria as having some currency, though I like the revisions added by John Stackhouse. I am at a loss as to the wax nose reference as the fluidity of language is such that most “labels” wax and wane but that does not seem to be sufficient to simply deem discussion irrelevant. The discussion does have the benefit of forcing a look at word usage and meaning and sorting through biases, etc. You tend to capitalize the E in evangelical, which seems to indicate you have some sort of understanding of what you intend with the word – and obviously it would seem to be different than a number here who do not use the capital. But back to Bebbington and Stackhouse – their definitions if you will suggest a particular emphasis on certain core faith views as distinguishing marks as opposed to socio-cultural emphasis. Hence this discussion for instance, obviously as I read through this, forces us to sort through our mental filters and maybe, just maybe, re-imagine that filter.

  • http://www.gettingoffthenicenesstreadmill.com/ Carol Noren Johnson

    #2. “All waiting for the rapture.” Nope. We don’t all go along with Tim LaHaye and the Left Behind series of books and movies. Some evangelicals don’t really care about eschatology.
    #6 “All evangelicals are Calvinists”. Nope. Some tend toward Arminianism because they reject Calvinism. Some don’t even know the terms Calvinism and Arminianism. Some are on the fence between emergent and evangelical, hating all the theological debate and wanting just to get on with Christ’s mission in the world.
    Stereotype from a Catholic source. For one of my blogs I recently researched feedback on a Swedish scholar, Gunnar Samuelsson of Gothenburg University, whose new paper is creating quite a stir with bloggers in the Muslin, and Catholic blogs, not to mention with some evangelicals. One blogger says Gunnar belongs to the Svenska Missionssällskapet, Swedish Mission Society and articles describe Samuelsson as a “committed Christian”. No one is saying if he is evangelical or not, but the Catholic blogs I found called him one of those “Sola Scriptura” people. They say Samuelsson wouldn’t have written his thesis if he believed in the “Tradition of the Church”. We Protestants are stereotyped by Catholics I found out! In turn we stereotype Catholics.
    I am an individual. I just want people to see Jesus Christ in me and to be growing in my faith as a committed Christian.
    Catcha: did halfback

  • http://www.asthedeer.com Chris

    Robin:
    On the source of mainline animosity toward conservatives. Prejudice is hard to explain.
    Four possibilities come to mind.
    1. Envy at the numbers associated with conservatives. Protestant churches that are growing and vital often have a conservative theology, at least that is the case in my community. Mainline churches are shrinking.
    2. Some mainliners have a painful past with fundamentalism. So they have an allergic reaction to all things orthodox or conservative. They have a hard time seeing grades or shades of belief in things.
    3. In mainline denominations, conservatives are the ones who oppose the proposals for change from the left, so they are perceived as troublemakers. If there were no conservatives, the opposition would disappear.
    4. Some conservatives are obnoxious and have rightly earned odium for their side. (obnoxiousness as a temperament appears on the left too.)
    All I can think of.

  • Lorna E

    Just who is the audience for this book? If for Evangelicals, what’s the point? They know if these are gross stereotypes or not. If for “the world”, will they read it? Will this convince someone that not “all” evangelicals are like this? (IF that someone actually reads it.) I guess I just don’t get it, nor am I interested in reading it.

  • dopderbeck

    @Kenny and Bill — but what Christians do those criteria exclude? I think Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians could affirm the EM’s criteria, though with some nuancing of #3 and maybe of #5.
    Actually — are you all totally comfortable with criterion #3′s very strongly monergistic soteriology? If “We contribute nothing to our salvation” is a completely accurate statement without nuance, does this exclude anyone taking the new perspective on Paul? Or does it exclude, say, Holiness Pentecostals?
    Personally, I agree that in terms of how we are justified before God, “we contribute nothing to our salvation.” But if this implies a thoroughgoing Reformed monergism with respect to notions such as “effectual calling” and “irresistible grace” — well, then I’m a little less willing to commit. Arminian, Catholic, Orthodox, and other more synergistic interpretations of the meaning of “faith” have to be heard. So am I not an “Evangelical?”
    @Bill — I’m capitalizing the “E” because these sorts of definitions are like denominational labels, and I can’t help but see all this definitional hand-wringing as an exercise of who’s in and who’s out of our pseudo-denomination. Actually I’d prefer not to capitalize the “E” — someone with an “evangelical” sensibility is a person who is committed to the good news of the incarnation, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Why isn’t that enough?

  • Ellen Haroutunian

    Though there are some who do personify much on that list, thank God that most evangelicals do not fit most of the items.

  • http://evangelicalmonk.com Bill

    @44 dopderbeck Thank you for your response. I get the capital “E” which I took as a sign, maybe incorrectly but consistently with the popular notion, of identifying evangelicals with their voting record and use of the so-called morality based litmus tests. The recent postings bringing this issue forward seems to have drawn a number of rather harsh and sweeping judgments as to evangelicals, and my main desire has been to push back against that, in my view, less than gracious effort at dialogue. Your nuance of evangelical sensibility does strike me as a great place to ground the conversation.
    captcha = committee enlist

  • http://lambpower.wordpress.com Steve D

    @ Jason Lee
    “Why don’t prominent Evangelical leaders use their voice to refute some of these accusations?”
    I suspect that most prominent Evangelical leaders are what cause some of the stereotypes. The problems stem from the fact that the media likes controversial extremes and some of our “leaders” just can’t shy away from a TV camera and microphones.

  • Canadian evangelical

    These are only misperceptions in that they use the prefix “All.” What IS true is that these beliefs (Rapturism, Republicanism, Creationism, etc.) are DOMINANT within AMERICAN evangelicalism. It’s well past time that the rest of you American evangelicals did something about it, instead of complaining about being misrepresented.

  • Scot McKnight

    Hey Mr Canadian Evangelical, I think Canada is “America” (as in North America) too! Ha.

  • Nathan

    I’d like to see evangelicals own their mis-perceptions about mainliners.
    If I was consistently met with scorn and accusations about how “we’ve all left off the authority of the bible” and aren’t really faithful Christians (practically a verbatim quote of the trope I grew up hearing over and over about anything non-free church evangelical/baptist/etc.) then I’d probably get a little resentful too.
    Not saying there isn’t plenty of bad attitudes to go around, but the disdainful arrogance and presumption of my evangelical upbringing toward all things lutheran/episcopal-anglican/methodist/presbyterian, etc. etc. etc. was uniform beyond the walls of my own local church life–my parents were highly involved with denominational leadership and activities.

  • AHH

    Nathan #50 makes a good point that evangelical/mainline misperceptions and mischaracterizations go both ways.
    It is not uncommon even on this blog to see comments where “mainline” is used as more-or-less a synonym for “apostate”.

  • RJS

    AHH,
    By definition any mainline church that isn’t, is actually evangelical right? (Like the PC(USA) churches I attended in CA and PA, anything Mark Roberts would pastor, …)
    Evangelical is a nice flexible term.

  • dopderbeck

    Did Canada become its own country? I hadn’t noticed…

  • dopderbeck

    Joking, joking… I love Canada. Kind of like a goofy uncle….


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X