What is Evangelism?

I'm still fuzzy on what an evangelist is. People here seem to be making a value judgement instead of actually defining what the word is. I presented the example of Jimmy Carter, who is a self-described evangelist, yet, he was defeated by the religious right, who turned against him and supported Ronald Reagan.

Sometimes people think of evangelists as con men under tents defrauding a bunch of gullible people. In the movie Elmer Gantry, which was the study of evangelists originally from the novel by Sinclair Lewis, the title character Elmer Gantry was a con man who linked up with an Evangelical group. But some of the people in that group were truly faithful. It really shocked Elmer Gantry.

What's to be grateful for? This is your hobby horse. You're the one who is obsessed about squaring the circle between Evangelical Christianity and LGBT rights. This is you redefining Evangelism to fit your own narrow parameters, for your own reasons, it's not some revelation but you passing off your own monomania as an epiphany.

There's nothing inherently wrong with that, and people have joined your discussion, (mostly to tell you you're wrong btw,) but it's nothing to be grateful about.

My threads get voted down all the time, but I don't threaten to throw my rattle out of the pram, get a bit of perspective.

Cobbler can be quite monochrome in his outlook, it's often very black and white. We fell out when he started to use the same intemperate language used by homophobic 'Christians' to denounce all Christians, especially the evangelical ones. I suspect this is just another excuse to condemn those faiths he has issues with.

There are lots of churches who welcome LGBT people, he could always go to one of those.

You are the one talking out of your ass, I used the Bible to define the word "evangelism" you are just using your ignorant blathering understanding, just like the dumb flock of the radical Christians do.

I am an agnostic, meaning, I do not know if there is a God, I will at any time bow to ANY shrine whose followers exhibit the fruit of kindness and tolerance towards others.

If that is a hobby horse, then, I will ride it with pleasure and pride. I don't have to be godless to be gay, I just have to be right in my thinking and perceptions.

I also happen to be ordained clergy...

You on the other hand are wrong and your word soup leaves out one basic element... nourishment.

You need to read and re-read the post I made about the gift ministries until it clicks.

You will understand that Jimmy Carter is not a necessarily a "self proclaimed" evangelist but he is likely a God appointed evangelist because he brings new people into the flock, but he is also a teacher, a pastor, a prophet and an apostle.

This is not a narrow view, this is the scripture and how it divides the gifts of the ministry, the manifestations and the fruits of the spirit.

It is a logical dividing of operations that would work in any business, organization or faculty.

This all comes down to what is called "long suits". Some people have a nice smile, and a warm disposition so "God" chooses them to greet the new believers. This does not mean they are unable to teach or pastor etc, this just means they have a particular affinity and talent towards welcoming new people into the flock.

Being that evangelism means only one thing... "greeting new people into the church", it is very easy for false evangelists to mimic and portray the discipline. Those with star quality, use and abuse this vocation to their own gain.

Once again, I will reiterate that, you will know if they are authentic by the fruits of their flock.

We are all held to this standard, even Jimmy Carter.

You selectively quoted fragments to support your own bias just like the homophobes do with Leviticus.

As for talking out of his arse, I bow to the master.

If you weren't so narcissistic you'd realise how ridiculous you can appear.

Like I told you earlier, you're in very great danger of turning into that you despise. Your relaxed attitude to the truth is just the beginning.

Still nothing to be grateful for.

And where are your scriptures to dispute what I have posted? The Bible is full of contradictions.

Show me chapter and verse?

I said I would be defining this term evangelism "biblically" not through Google or a dictionary.

Now I have laid a biblical foundation... Use the Bible to argue it, or you are, talking just to hear yourself speak...

Logically, evangelists, biblically cannot be teachers if teachers are listed in the exact same verse. Use your brain, I didn't write the book go have your fit with those who did.

I am just pointing out that the Bible does clearly define the practice of evangelism.

If you think that is a narrow definition then take that up with the Bible's authors, dispute them, disagree, disregard and disbelieve them altogether but don't shoot the messenger.

I'm just pointing out your histrionics re the voting down of this thread. If anything you should be grateful to me for posting and giving it another +1, although it still appears fixed on zero.

There's many reasons threads get voted down, not least that most religious posters are fanatics with views very different from your own. You seem to accept them voting you down but are upset with others for not voting you back up again. Why should they? Most people who share your views politically aren't bothered with redefining evangelism.

You chide people for not rallying around behind you and a subject that does not interest them and you cut off your nose to spite your face by refusing to post on your thread until the masses pay homage.

Unless you want to spend the rest of your life tilting at windmills get a sense of proportion.

I thank you for giving the thread a +1 Izzy,

I try to see myself in perspective but I too have an ego and feelings. I probably have flights of fancy and you are probably right, I do have a few crosses to burn.

I have never been fond of most evangelists, I consider them scummy and dumb when it comes to matters of the spirit.

One of the biggest points I would like to make is the Bible makes a clear distinction between evangelists and teachers.

Don't be fooled into thinking Evangelicals don't know the narrow definition between protecting the fetus and caring for the child.

Never once is it recorded that Jesus charged people for teaching... Maybe a little precious oil for his skin on occasion and a roof over his head, a place to lay his tired bones and a meal, but he did not "charge tuition".

He asked only that people share of their wealth with those less fortunate.

Now we have the evangelicals infiltrating our public education system, I do not see this going well at all.

I felt it was time to educate people on what evangelicals, biblically, really are.

If someone is preaching peace and love I don't have any problems with them regardless of what religion they espouse. I have problems with those who spread division and hate.

Whether or not those people define themselves as evangelist, teacher or whatever isn't as important as that.

Our system is different. Religion is taught in schools, actually until the 1980s it was the only compulsory subject, although you'd be hard pushed to find a school that didn't focus on Maths and English.

Religion, (all religion,) is taught, not just one religion, and a lot of RE teachers are atheists.

However, RE stays out of the science classes as it should.

After Trump and Moore, evangelicals question what their movement stands for
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/1/1/1725351/-After-Trump-and-Moore-evangelicals-question-what-their-movement-stands-for?detail=emaildkre

You make a great point about looking at the way people treat others.

Some people approach religion with an open heart and mind and some approach religion with partisan leanings.

They don't care what the Bible says, they only care what their political party, preacher or "Trump" says... Yet they proudly call themselves evangelicals.

Dung by another name is still dung.

The Bible talks about the body as a temple built upon a rock, a great foundation, cornerstone and each stone built firmly upon another and then it talks about shifting stands and "dust" blown about by every wind of doctrine.

Wisdom is built upon a great foundation of applied knowledge, experience and temperance.

Quality of fruit and good seed.

It is not always what is seen, but unseen, and not that which is outwardly shown but what is born inwardly.

The outward appearance can be disguised and arrayed with fine clothes while the inside is naked and destitute of moral character.

A bad tree can sometimes bring forth good fruit so as to disguise the evil nature within.

What may seem right can be merely an illusion.

I know it's an analogy, but I just can't accept that there's such a thing as a bad tree. All trees are good, even the poisonous ones.

I get your sentiment and it is commendable.

But, when considering quality of fruit, a "bad" tree would produce fruit that is sour and inedible, dried up or toxic.

When considering this sentiment is nice but were one to remove the "bad" tree and plant in its place one which produces edible and nourishing fruit it seems a more practical solution to feed a starving family.

Just like people who nourish themselves on ideas that masquerade as truth, People say they are "pro life"while in the same breath the living, young and old are neglected and left to die. Healthcare is withheld and racism is justified using obscure and erroneous myths.

They produce bad fruit and their effect on the minds of others is toxic and devoid of quality and wholesome thinking. Words become weapons and doctrines become practice and produce chaos and death. A gardener knows to toss out the weeds so they do not choke the good seed from taking root.

This is part of life that we produce quality fruit and we toss the bad fruit.

We separate the wheat from the chaff, so that the fine cedars and firs are not overrun by the bramble.

In time of drought the bramble will light afire and burn the whole forest.

It takes a discerning mind to know the difference between what is good and what is bad.

The bad can seem good and the good can seem bad, the end thereof in wrong discernment is death.

There tree of life and a tree of knowledge of good and evil (bad), both are required.

A timeline: Ten of Jimmy Carter’s major accomplishments
http://politics.myajc.com/blog/politics/timeline-ten-jimmy-carter-major-accomplishments/A8MLxDeXpkFJpE90qJyeUM/

I am not sure what to think about Jimmy Carter.

He has certainly done a lot of good but his seeming appeasement for Trump is pure insanity.

Why do we need teachers and higher learning? All that matters is the fetus and not the baby, the pupil and not the education. (cynical)

Without knowledge of good there can be no knowledge of evil...

Stupid people elected Trump...

I missed something here. What do you mean by Carter's appeasement of Trump?

I read that Jimmy Carter stated that President Trump has been treated worse by the media than any other president. That really doesn't mean that he thinks it's undeserved. President Trump has been treated worse by the media than any other president and for good reason. He deserves it.

When I read that Carter said he would be more than willing to help Trump negotiate with the North Koreans, I thought that would be a good thing. Carter is the voice of moderation and negotiation, whereas Trump is the voice of extremism and alienation. Trump would do well to accept Carter's offer, but what's the chance of that happening?

I just saw the Winston Churchill movie “The Darkest Hour”. I think North Korea should be treated like Nazi Germany. We are in the stages before the war now. What would Churchill do?

He was sitting on the back benches. North Korea is nothing like Nazi Germany in terms of threat. North Korea can do a lot of damage but not without being totally annihilated, and any invasion will be short lived if not impossible.

Btw, Churchill would see Trump for the nasty little fascist he is.