<div>keely-</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Thanks for your reply... </div>
<div> </div>
<div>I don't really need the arm now. My injury is healing. Besides, what is this, China, where those who oppose the government (Christians were required to register with the Chinese Communist Part if they held Bible studies in their homes!) may end up having their body parts raided after being jailed? Geez...
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I always tended to think (about once every five years or so, I truly "think," but mostly I just "tend to") "fundamentalists" and "evangelicals" were close to following the same basic religious beliefs in the world of Christian ideology. Perhaps I have had this wrong.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I find the question of why there are not more women prominent in the world of famous "preachers" in today's society interesting. Feminism has made great gains in rights for women, yet we find that in the past there were famous women preachers that were perhaps more widely popular than women preachers today. Perhaps our society is far more sexist at this point in time than many suppose, which may explain why the US Congress only has about 14-18 percent women representing the populace in 2005:
</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.emilyslist.org/newsroom/referenceguide.html">http://www.emilyslist.org/newsroom/referenceguide.html</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>And I personally believe that at this point in time a women would not win the US Presidency, due to the latent or manifest sexism common in US society. The dems. are fools if they nominate Hillary Clinton for the presidency. Her swing to the "middle" will not help.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>In the 1920s a women could be a famous evangelical. Who was Aimee McPherson?</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.suntimes.com/special_sections/evangelical/cst-nws-evangbside13.html">http://www.suntimes.com/special_sections/evangelical/cst-nws-evangbside13.html</a><br><br>"We had them in the 1920s, but not now," said Julie Ingersoll, an associate
<br>professor of religious studies at the University of North Florida who is<br>author of the book *Evangelical Christian Women: War Stories in the Gender<br>Battles. *<br><br>Aimee Semple McPherson, an evangelist who founded Los Angeles' pentecostal
<br>Foursquare Gospel Church back in the 1920s, is perhaps the best example of<br>the kind of female evangelical powerhouse who's missing today, Ingersoll<br>said. In her day, McPherson was as well known as a Pat Robertson or Billy
<br>Graham. Today, even McPherson's own Foursquare church has few women in<br>leadership positions, Ingersoll said.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>-------</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Ted Moffett<br> </div>
<div> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 4/16/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">keely emerinemix</b> <<a href="mailto:kjajmix1@msn.com">kjajmix1@msn.com</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid"><br><br>I answered too quickly and forgot a couple of other points, namely this: I<br>can barely lift a five-pound medicine ball with that arm, Ted. That means
<br>the size of a good study Bible with concordance, or a bottle of pinot<br>grigio. If youwant someone who can do 100 lbs. at a straight lift, you'll<br>have to go find Carl Westberg.<br><br>I agree, more or less, with the definition provided for "evangelical," but I
<br>would not include Reconstructionists, Christian Identity, or King James-only<br>fundamentalists. Generally, fundamentalists disallow any identification<br>with "evangelicals" and Identity groups hold to a vicious and ugly theology
<br>that departs from historic, credal theology on a number of points, not the<br>least of which is its inevitable anti-Semitism. An alternative definition<br>(from a sociology professor I studied under in college) is this: a person
<br>who, while holding to the traditional creeds of the orthodox (note: not<br>"Orthodox") historical Christian faith who additionally embraces the<br>following three tenets: The primacy of Christ as Savior, the need for a
<br>personal, regenerative relationship with him, and the importance of personal<br>proclamation of the Gospel. Sorry, but dismantling worldly institutions to<br>usher in the dominion of the church, thus paving the way for the Millennium,
<br>doesn't qualify (Reconstructionism); neither does the absurd belief that the<br>Twelve tribes migrated to what is now Great Britain and that none of them,<br>amazingly enough, were actually Jewish (Identity). And today's
<br>fundamentalists, the KJV-only set, tend to not engage at all with<br>unbelievers and are critical of those who do, which would seem to violate<br>the third tenet of evangelicalism. (Remember, it was the fundies who<br>
blasted that wild-eyed liberal, Billy Graham, in the 1960s for once sharing<br>a podium with -- gasp! -- Jews, Muslims, and . . . Methodists. Fortunately,<br>Billy survived their rebuke, while fundies now find themselves arguing about
<br>who can be nastier in arguing about how damned everyone else is, for the<br>glory of God.<br><br>And fundies are resolutely patriarchial, which, I think, gets us back to our<br>opening salvo -- a rhetorical, not physical, salvo . . .
<br><br>keely<br><br>_________________________________________________________________<br>FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now!<br><a href="http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/">
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/</a><br><br></blockquote></div><br>