Talk:National Association of Evangelicals
|WikiProject Christianity||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
Ted Haggard scandal belongs on the Ted Haggard page
This conforms to standard Wikipedia practice. For example, neither the United States of America page nor the Democratic Party page refers to the scandals of its past presidents. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 18.104.22.168 (talk • contribs) .
- While we should be careful that the Haggard scandal isn't given undue weight in this article, it's certainly appropriate to mention it here. After all, Haggard was (is?) the president of the NAE at the time the scandal broke, and it's all over the news at the moment. The only reason Haggard is known is because of his position with the NAE, so this article should provide at least *some* description of what's going on. Basically, the Haggard article should provide the details, but it's appropriate to mention the scandal, in summary form, in this article. · j e r s y k o talk · 22:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, some mention does belong here, if you look at a similarly controversial organization of a simillar age, you'll find the scandals listed in summery form. For example, PETA mentions its domain name disputes. Such information should generally remain in the main article until there is enough of it to move to a second article.
- You'r welcome to shorten the Ted Haggard section & provide a "Main article "Ted Haggard" subheading. JeffBurdges 17:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- I shortened the Haggard section -- I didn't think it was fair for a scandal to have nearly as much text in this article as the organization's history... especially because it's addressed at length in Haggard's own article. I moved it as a subhead under the "presidents" section. Kimleonard 21:43:17 19 Feb 2007 (UTC)
Pet peeves belong on a blog
The NAE has decided it's not about global warming. So what? Most organizations are not.
- I'm not sure what that author was trying to say. Maybe NAE ministers refuse to make an anti-oil statment while other evangelicals do? Maybe NAE is just voicing an appropriate level of support for its ministers who support enviromental measures? I simply can't tell from what is said. It might be relevant if they are bucking the trend, otherwise I'd just say that they go along with everybody else when their positions on other issues are mentioned. JeffBurdges 17:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- It'd be nice to see the global warming thing expanded to reference the major issues that the NAE has dealt with - particularly any that they have taken an official stance on. Just having global warming seems to leave the article a little unbalanced. --Tim4christ17 talk 17:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Here's a list of the Policy Resolutions of the NAE.  --Tim4christ17 talk 18:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- I belive this is appropriate. Richard Cizik, the NAE's chief lobbyist, made global warming a very large part of his agenda after 2004 (see his WP entry for more information). Media reports routinely confused his statements with the official position of the NAE, gaining him both fame (co-named, with Harvard scientist Erick Chivian, one of TIME Magazine's 2008 "100 most influential people of the year") and notoriety (Dobson and others called for him to be reigned in). Critics pointed out that media coverage of the NAE during the year of the Ted Haggard scandal was three and a half times more likely to mention global warming than Haggard. I've amended the article accordingly (including a mention by the current president of the Association--a friend and public ally of Cizik's on the issue--that Cizik spoke for himself and not the organization on global warming), but I'm open to ideas about how and where to handle this. --Wiki-vega (talk) 06:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Info on positions?
The article mentions that NAE refused to take a position on global warming, strongly implying that it DOES take positions on many issues. I looked up the NAE after seeing their name on the inside cover of this document, hoping to find out how traditionalist or progressive this organization was... I'm afraid WP disappoints here.
How do they define "evangelical"?
Do they have an actual definition of what it means to be "evangelical"? I notice Mennonite, Calvinist, Anglican, and Pentecostal churches are all present, yet in many cases these groups have very little in common with one another! FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 00:55, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, evangelicals have a lot in common with each other. I would encourage you to read the article on Evangelicalism to gain some perspective. Evangelicalism is not a denomination. It is a pan-denominational movement that emphasizes certain doctrines and de-emphasizes others. As a Pentecostal Christian, I would probably have more in common with an Evangelical Anglican than an Evangelical Anglican could have in common with a Liberal/Modernist/Progressive (pick your own label) Anglican.
- The NAE's statement of faith can be found here.
- The NAE's definition of "evangelical" can be found here.
- If you want to get even more in-depth information, the NAE page linked above has a link to a document called An Evangelical Manifesto:A Declaration of Evangelical Identity and Commitment, which can be found here as a PDF. Ltwin (talk) 08:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)