The problem with such 'specialist' meanings is that they are inevitably blurred psychologically with other meanings. Douglas Hofstadter gives a great example of this in an essay on sexist language: if an anthropologist begins a talk with the heading "Man the Hunter", the intention may be to discuss the differences between earlier agrarian hominids and omniverous humanity, using 'man' in the 'technical' sense as a species designator. But inevitably there is a blurring with the more common meaning of 'man' - male. So when the lecturer says "Man the Hunter", the mental image most people will have is of a male - not (as is possible from the 'technical' meaning) a female of the species, thus re-inforcing the idea that it is the male who is the virile hunter while the female stays meekly at home.
In the current discussion a similar problem arises. That is, members of EMU may say that they are using the word 'evangelical' in a particular specialist way which refers to a certain complex of beliefs centred around the Bible and its interpretation and certain touchstone theological ideas. And similarly there would be many UCA members who would want to say that they are NOT evangelicals according to that specific meaning. But inevitably, the meanings become blurred, so in the debate, those who are not 'evangelicals' in that specific sense, become tarred with the brush that they are not interested in the Bible, or do not believe or give it authority, or are not motivated by the gospel - all rubbish of course. Then by comparison with 'evangelistic', such 'non-evangelical' members are assumed to be uninterested in communicating the gospel or unbelieving of its power to change lives - again utter rubbish. To put it another way - given the etymological derivation of evangelical from evangel (gospel), clearly 'evangelical' must be a good thing for christians to be. Thus those not privy to 'specialist' meanings have no alternative but to imagine that 'non-evangelical' christians must not be very good christians. This is what I object to in the self-designation of EMU (or anyone else) as 'evangelical' - the eventual result, by blurring of definitions is the denigration of other people with different approaches as not being good or proper christians. Naturally the same analysis may be extended to churches or groups who describe themselves as 'bible-believing'. Thoughtful EMU members may acknowledge that they are using the word 'evangelical' in a specialist sense, but the movement (which says it is about plain meanings) will never forgo that specialist word because of the insidious propaganda value it has. Cheers Linz Psssst! Did you hear that Susan & Wesley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said this: > "We evangelicals use the word in a different way - the one sanctioned by the > Oxford Church Dictionary (I think that is what it is called). The > specialist meaning of evangelical deals with belief in the atonement Christ > made for sin, belief in the Scripture as regulating our faith and obedience > because it is God's word to us. We are not at liberty to ignore passages at > random (or for particular purposes). We haven't hijacked the word > 'evangelical', unless the Oxford Church Dictionary has. It is a recognised > meaning - a specialist meaning, admittedly. Our name unashamedly claims > this specialist meaning in our EMU constitution." Windows 2000 = Mac 1984! -- Rev. Lindsay Cullen Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] An old(!) website... www.lindsaycullen.com ------------------------------------------------------ - You are subscribed to the mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put in the message body 'unsubscribe insights-l' (ell, not one (1)) See: http://nsw.uca.org.au/insights-l-information.htm ------------------------------------------------------
