So what do you think of when you hear or read the word “evangelist”? Perhaps it would be better to frame the question this way: “Who do you think of when hear or read the word ‘evangelist’?”
I would predict that the average consumer of the news would give a simple response to the second question — “Billy Graham.” Truth is, Graham does fit the most common Protestant definition of that term. Here is a typical dictionary reference:
evan-ge-list …
Date: 13th century(1) often capitalized: a writer of any of the four Gospels
(2) a person who evangelizes; specifically: a Protestant minister or layman who preaches at special services
Now, with this in mind, consider the following attempts by the Associated Press to report on the conviction of the bizarre preacher and, many would argue, cult leader Tony Alamo of Arkansas. Here is the headline and the top of an early version of the story:
Jurors convict evangelist in sex-crimes trial
TEXARKANA, Ark. — A federal jury has convicted evangelist Tony Alamo on charges he took underage girls across state lines for sex. …
The jury found the 74-year-old Alamo guilty of all 10 counts he faced. The indictment accused him of taking girls as young as 9 across state lines as early as 1994.
Now, I have no way of knowing what happened next at the main Associated Press copy desk or at the regional bureau. But something happened that, only an hour later, radically improved the top of the story.
It’s possible (I am an idealistic guy, at heart) that someone said, “Wait a minute. Who is this Tony Alamo and what does he do? What is he actually famous for? Is this guy actually a Christian ‘evangelist,’ in any meaningful sense of that word?” It’s possible that someone who has been around for a few years even said, “Wait a minute. Isn’t this the guy who kept his wife’s corpse in the living room all those years because he was sure she was going to rise from the dead?”
Whatever happened, this is what the top of the basic Associated Press report looked like one hour later. The headline is still messed up, but check out the lede:
Jurors convict evangelist on 10 sex-abuse counts
TEXARKANA, Ark. — Tony Alamo, a one-time street preacher who built a multimillion-dollar ministry and became an outfitter of the stars, was convicted Friday of taking girls as young as 9 across state lines for sex.
Alamo stood silently as the verdict was read, a contrast to his occasional mutterings during testimony. His five victims sat looking forward in the gallery. One, a woman he “married” at age 8, wiped away a tear.
“I’m just another one of the prophets that went to jail for the Gospel,” Alamo called to reporters afterward as he was escorted to a waiting U.S. marshal’s vehicle.
Now folks, that’s much, much better. Instead of a mere label — “evangelist,” leaning toward “evangelical” — we have some carefully chosen words that described what this man was known for doing. Accuracy is important.
Show us, don’t tell us. Give us information, not vague labels. And it helps if you know what the word mean when you use them. The second report is greatly improved. Bravo.
On a personal note, let me confess that this story caught my eye for a simple reason. I actually met this strange fellow years ago while I was at the Charlotte Observer.
Alamo was in town to distribute anti-Catholic screeds and raise money and, somehow, he made it past security and got into the newsroom to put some of his disgusting tracts in the open mailboxes of all of the reporters and editors. Yes, he was dressed as Elvis at the time.
As you would imagine, this rather freaked everybody out. Also showed up next to my desk, on his way out, and said that he thought that I needed to write a column about him. I passed.
Photo: Tony and Susan Alamo in the glory days.
 | Posted at 9:32 pm |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (23) |
July 26, 2009, at 12:10 am
Two things:
Is he the guy who made flashy Western shirts for the Country Western wannabe crowd?
The late Susan looked an awful lot like Dale Evans.
July 26, 2009, at 1:50 am
Would it be better to describe Alamo as a conservative Christian? He does seem to adhere to the main tenets and political positions of conservative Christianity. I think the press here is in a bind. If they call him an Evangelist, they risk offending a group of people and may not have the most accurate term. But evangelist is not totally inapplicable. This is a very tricky area for journalists. Don’t know what the solution is.
July 26, 2009, at 10:39 am
It pains me to have to agree with delea, but he IS an Evangelist Christian. You might want to add, perhaps, Independent Evangelist Christian if he doesn’t belong to any main branch. Frankly, when I do hear the word Evangelist I don’t personally think of Billy Graham, but some form of this guy. Something tells me that I am not alone in that stereotyping mental image. Right or wrong, Evangelicals have come off as offensive even if I agree with their conservative politics.
July 26, 2009, at 12:35 pm
Okay, y’all: he is NOT an “Evangelist Christian”. He may or may not be an EVANGELICAL Christian, and he may or may not be an evangelist, but there is no such thing as an evangelist Christian.
July 26, 2009, at 1:27 pm
I find “evangelist” preferable to “cult leader”, which is a judgement masquerading as a description.
Dalea, you are going to be vehemently disputed by the many who insist that Alamo and his followers are not “really” Christian due to their heresies.
July 26, 2009, at 2:00 pm
“Who do you think of when hear or read the word ‘evangelist’?”
The Four Evangelists - Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
(No, really, that’s who I thought of first).
July 26, 2009, at 2:55 pm
To me an evangelist is anyone who tris to convert me.
July 26, 2009, at 3:00 pm
Two things:
1. Do only religions have compounds? Why not use the words campus, manor, development, etc.
2. Why do criminals cross state lines to do their evil things? Have they never heard of the FBI? It’s like they want to get a U.S. attorney after them.
July 26, 2009, at 3:01 pm
I’m with Martha.
Secondarily, I’d think of Billy Graham.
July 26, 2009, at 7:04 pm
Matt K. The Kennedys have a compound in Hyannisport according to the media. But then their version of the Catholic Faith is now so far gone Left that you could consider that they are leaders of a cult in a compound.
As far as how to label Alamo—- how about: paranoid conspiracy cult leader instead of anything resembling the word “evangelist” or Evangelical”????
He claims the Vatican is behind all his legal problems, but I only saw this mentioned in one media story.
July 26, 2009, at 8:53 pm
Who I think of when I hear “evangelist” depends on the context. If “television” is anywhere in the proximity, it’s Jim and Tammy Baker and Oral “Give Me $8 Million Or God Will Kill Me” Roberts.
July 26, 2009, at 10:10 pm
Pretty remarkable stuff. Here’s the link:
“Tony Alamo Ministries”
Seems the U.S. Government is in cahoots with the “homosexual Pope” to silence and destroy Mr. Alamo, along with the FLDS and the folks at Waco. The only missing usual suspects are the Freemasons and the Jews. Guess and Jack Chick are not on quite the same wavelength. Utterly bizarre.
July 27, 2009, at 1:44 am
In the event the dude was ever preaching the Gospel at some point, he was a person who evangelizes, thus an evangelist. Give the corporate press and the reading public some credit. Most likely the majority of them see one more hypocrite, not the average Christian. Respectfully this is one bone tat shouldn’t have been picked at.
July 27, 2009, at 1:48 am
MattK, famous people have compounds: the Jackson family compound has been in the news lately. Madonna has one also. The term is used quite frequently this way.
July 27, 2009, at 2:05 am
I’m glad nobody here condemned this fellow. Seems we catholics pretty much just hate the sin. Don’t we know some catholic evangelists that at one point in their lives didn’t much like us?
July 27, 2009, at 9:45 am
WILL:
Way back up there at No. 5.
This is an interesting case in which the “cult” label comes from the left. However, Alamo fits every definition of “cult” — theological or sociological — that I have ever run into in my studies in the history of religion.
July 27, 2009, at 6:01 pm
Who is calling whom, not who, an evangelical?
July 28, 2009, at 9:31 am
Dan (#17)
Actually, no. The verb is “is”. Therefore, both pronouns should be nominative.
July 28, 2009, at 9:35 am
Dan (#17):
Never mind. You are correct. “is calling” is the verb: present participle.
July 28, 2009, at 2:55 pm
I thought, you are going to blow the minds of lots of readers and talk about one of our modern day Catholic Evangelists. On of the many who fight for the truths of the faith, maybe Patrick Magrid, Scott Hahn or even Deacon Alex Jones, but no
you just have to perpetuate the ongoing bashing and mis-use of “evangelist” Mark, Matthew,Luke and John are still just shaking their heads.
July 28, 2009, at 6:22 pm
[…] Terry Mattingly was so astonished by a correct AP story that he posted twice, “Who’s calling who an ‘evangelist’?” “Hey AP: You had it […]
July 29, 2009, at 6:55 pm
Tony Alamo’s screeds have evolved over time. Back in the 1970s he claimed that the Jews were in cahoots with the Vatican, and that they were all in league together with the guvermment (he served time for tax evasion because he was laundering income from his sales of designer cowboy boots and western wear through his church). Sometime in the 1980s he seemed to lose interest in bashing the Jews. He is well-known from Texas to Tennessee as a cult leader, and nobody has any confusion that he is anywhere near the mainstream of Evangelical thinking, with nearly all Christians aware that he preaches his own home-grown heresies along with his conspiracy theories.
August 2, 2009, at 11:50 am
[…] Who’s calling who an evangelist? […]