I think I am going to have to create a GetReligion list of “Big Ideas,” the concepts that drive what we do here. These two ideas would certainly be near the top, “Words have meaning” and “Ideas have consequences.”
When journalists use terms incorrectly, they add bad information and distortion to public discourse. Thus, we spend lots of time here discussing what words mean, especially in terms of church history and the history of world religions. Debates over the meaning of the word “jihad” matter. It matters that the Associated Press has provided specific guidelines on how to handle the precise term “fundamentalist,” which has turned into a slur that gets thrown all over the place willy-nilly.
Thus, I praised the Associated Press the other day (click here for background) when it appeared that someone on the copy desk or in a regional bureau got a clue and came to the accurate conclusion that you can call the Rev. Tony Alamo all kinds of things, but it is hard to accurately call him an “evangelist,” in the ancient or modern definitions of this word.
This started an interesting discussion in the comments pages, including the following:
Jettboy says:
July 26, 2009, at 10:39 amIt pains me … 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.
This is a variation on an old argument that sounds something like this: “This is what I think the word means, so that’s what it means.” There’s a variation on this theme that journalists often use that weaves in a kind of postmodern twist: “Words change. Everyone knows what that word means right now when the great community of mainstream journalists use it that way. Thus, that’s what the word means.” This is a popular argument on the left when using the aforementioned “fundamentalist.” On the right, there are some folks who like to toss around the “cult” word.
In this case, Alamo is an “evangelist” because he tried to make converts, even if he never did large-scale public evangelism, that I am aware of. For years, journalists kept calling Pat Robertson and Dr. James Dobson “evangelists” too. If you want to be accurate, both are “religious broadcasters.”
Now, you might say that Alamo was a “street-corner evangelist” at times, except that the more common term for that role — used by AP in the improved, second draft of one early story — is “street preacher.” He was certainly a pastor, in a warped sort of way.
Anyway, I am sad to report that there is another Associated Press report out there that tosses the “evangelist” label back into play, along with some other labels — some more accurate that others. You could have a lively discussion in a church-history seminar on the question of whether it is more accurate to call Alamo’s congregation a “sect” or a “cult.” As I said earlier, I vote for the latter term for doctrinal and sociological reasons.
Here’s the lede on this new Associated Report
Of all the horrid accusations against evangelist Tony Alamo — and the list is long — it was the testimony of formerly loyal subjects, recounting “marriages” between their sect leader and girls as young as 8, that may end his 40-year rule and send him to prison for life.
Born Bernie Lazar Hoffman, the 74-year-old faces up to 175 years behind bars after his conviction Friday in federal court in Texarkana, Ark., on 10 counts of transporting young girls across state lines for sexual purposes. Some jurors wept while women described being molested by and forced into sex with their decades-older pastor.
Among many who’ve watched Alamo’s handiwork since the 1970s — which produced allegations including kidnapping, brainwashing, child abuse, tax evasion and threatening a federal judge — there was never any doubt the street-hustler-turned-pastor should be locked away for good. Their question is, what took so long?
The irony is that this otherwise excellent, highly detailed report by Deborah Hastings gives all kinds of information about Alamo’s activities during his troubled lifetime, from his role as a trashy fashionista to his virulent anti-Catholicism. However, the story never describes Alamo as the leader of evangelistic rallies — large or small.
You see, Alamo’s message was far too radical for that. This was a guy who won his converts face to face and then pulled them into his small, secretive flock. His handing out ugly tracts enough to make you an “evangelist”? What does this fine story gain from using that technical term?
Just saying….
 | Posted at 10:29 am |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (9) |
July 27, 2009, at 1:16 pm
Interesting topic (this post and the last one). In a cappella Churches of Christ, we typically do not refer to our preachers as “pastors.” So typically, our 13,000 congregations nationwide will call them “ministers” or “evangelists.” The terms, on business cards and the back of church bulletins, seem to be used pretty interchangeably. Therefore, when you asked the other day who I think of when you say “evangelist,” well, I think of a lot of people.
That perspective probably colors my opinion on this topic, but this seems to be a rare case where GetReligion is getting a little too nitpicky. The No. 2 definition of evangelist in my dictionary is, after all, “a preacher of the gospel.” There is certainly some question of what kind of gospel Alamo was preaching, but it would appear he fits the broad definition.
July 27, 2009, at 1:26 pm
Mr. Ross:
However, the Associated Press has that straight for your denomination. The Churches of Christ/Disciples get their own sections of the book — with the titles explained.
However (saith the former Milligan College professor), you will note that the independent Christian Churches in the middle (so to speak) are missing. Alas.
My point is this: Why use broad, meaningless words that many will belief are wrong and inaccurate when there are specific, information dense words that will work? Why settle for labels, especially when the person involved only fits the vague meanings of the term, and not the specifics?
July 27, 2009, at 1:51 pm
I think that’s true in this case. If most people think words mean something else and would get confused if you used the more precise words then there’s a problem. But that was not true this time.
July 27, 2009, at 2:39 pm
Realizing this is somewhat off topic, but like AP, the Religion Newswriters Association also has no independent Christian Church entry in its Religion Stylebook: http://www.religionwriters.com/tools-resources/religionstylebook/stylec That seems to be a pretty large omission given that the instrumental Christian Churches claim about 1.2 million members in the U.S.
July 27, 2009, at 4:41 pm
So, why is “cult” good usage, when “fundamentalist” is to be avoided?
The use of “cult” as a boogeyman label is another instance of the “words change their meaning according to usage” dodge. I have yet to see any of the witchhunters be consistent about following any of their ad hoc “definitions” of the label.
Will
Member of a “strange church” that “doesnt’ believe in normal things” and is probably a “cult”, according to Missouri Democraps.
July 27, 2009, at 5:35 pm
WILL:
Sociologists on left and right have used the term without problem for decades or longer. The question is when people start attaching DOCTRINAL definitions; say Southern Baptists discussing the status of Mormons, for example.
When that starts showing up in DIRECT quotes, I always pause and make sure the reader knows why people feel that they have to use that word and in what sense they are using it. Takes a sentence or two.
You might want to see:
http://www.tmatt.net/2002/02/13/latter-day-saints-and-that-c-word/
I have no control over witchhunters. This is a site seeking sanity among journalists.
July 28, 2009, at 9:33 am
[…] Read it. […]
July 28, 2009, at 11:30 am
Re: words that change their meaning.
Check Wikipedia for a very thorough discussion of the original meaning of cultus or cult. In general, it means a particular kind of religious practice.
This sense of the word is still used in the Catholic world,in the academic sociology/anthropology of religion, and in other ways. An example is given of French newspaper listings for church services for Catholic culte and Protestant culte.
The article says the word didn’t appear in English until sometime in the 1800s.
A separate article in Wikipedia addresses the changed use of the English word cult since about the 1920s, that adopted the negative connotation.
July 29, 2009, at 10:28 am
Sorry tmatt, but I am calling “hogwash” on this one. Can you explain how he is *not* an Evangelist? Even according to the definition quoted in the original post he is one. My statement because of “changing of word meanings,” but based on the very open meaning of the word. If you want to argue that the dictionary gets it wrong as well, then that is fine. There are definitions I have run into in the dictionary that I think are wrong. However, your argument right now seems less about precision and more about religious political boundaries.