This Fulcrum forum thread has had a good run for some time now. I suggest that we leave it for a season, being the last day of 2008, and not add to it for a while. Hope this is OK. How about commenting on the newly created thread on Sudan?

I respectfully suggest you get on with sharing Jesus's message of love and peace ! 

(Use words when necesary -sparingly! And leave your jargon in your study !  Please and thank you !).

 All this enrgy and time poured wastefully into Church politics, Churchianity and power struggles. Get out and vist that lonely old poerson, those youths, that person you never get round to seeing.

And when did you last visit or make contact with shop workers and other places of work in your parishes ?

(Don't make excuses you spend hours and hours on all this *'Evangelical' stuff which benefits no-one and is a distraction -- a pretext to avoid the real ministry)

* what a misnomer !

Make a newyear resolution !

kairos kairos kairos kairos  !      kairos kairos kairos kairos   ! 

wggrace says "So can we establish what people think the point of defining Evangelical is?"I agree with wggrace -  a definition can be very helpful in building the trust necessary for unity....and definitions are not necessarily exclusive.... as GAFCON shows  -  people do not have to have identical views to be united but they do need to have a degree of trust in what others stand for and be sure that there is a core of shared beliefs (if unity is to be more than largely insitutional). It has been great to see conservative open, and charismatic evangelicals united with Anglocatholics in GAFCON.....based on trust in each other's positions. Clearly, re-defining "evangelical" in "liberal" directions undermines that trust and unity....this is not desirable when these are scarce commodities and gives us a very good reason for not letting "evangelical" be RE-defined to include "liberal" views......

I think there is no great need to define what is "evangelical"  (its meaning is not a mystery to many people...) but we have to resist those who want to RE-DEFINE "evangelical" to include their "liberal" views.... because, for some unexplained reason, they want to hold "liberal" views but not be known as "liberals".  The danger if they succeed in re-defining the word is that "evangelical" will cease to have much meaning e.g. like the word "Anglican" does not mean any one, clear thing given those who believe the creeds and those who are quite open that they do not believe (selectively) the creeds (or 39 articles) both claim to be "Anglican" .......and can even be clergy and bishops. To avoid this sort of  confusion (subversion?), I think it is important not to let "evangelical" be re-defined to include "liberal" views .... and moderate "liberals" ought not to be ashamed of being seen as "liberal" if that is what they are in reality. 

The motivation for not wanting re-definition of "evangelical" to include "liberal" views is to protect and build unity.

Roger

Thank you for so clearly and graciously outlining your personal labels - and in doing so outlining mine for me. Suddenly, for once, labeling feels lke a life giving not a libelling.

If I could find a way of sending a hug for you to down load I would.

"Always speak out to God as if he  were a friend."

Rebbe Nachman of Breslov

People pin all sorts of labels to my head, including Christian, and I tend to let people call me the names they call me. My invitation to my box pew was a little ironic: it is another of the labels. I don't like the labels game, despite having to use them for quick identity purposes, and I think I can be subversive by dodging around them and accepting what names people want to use. I'm a Christian religious-humanist liberal.

Roger -thank you for your reply and expanding on the labels you mentioned........as for the "open" label, I think that is a label that can be done away with  -  you mention +Durham in connection with the "open" tag but, as a "conservative", he is one of the main evangelical bishops I look to in all the AC and CofE theological mess to stand up for the biblical case (basically standing for the authority of scripture whether we are talking of Lambeth 1.10 or penal substitution or whatever the issue may be) ....and he does and I am grateful to him for taking the brick bats. So, you name him in connection with being "open" but I respect him as a "conservative".  This means that we can also do away with the "conservative" label.  We could just be "evangelical".......

I still think we need to think about what it is we are trying to define when we define evangelical. At the house where I was on holiday recently, there was a book on evangelicalism by, if my memory is correct, Richard Turnbull. The book pointed out that when we attempt a definition of something like 'Evangelical' we need to know what we are trying to do. So if we are attempting some kind of sociological analysis, the definition will be of one sort but if one is attempting a theological description then the definition will be slightly different and if one is attempting to form parties to press for changes or some other political programme, yet another definition will be appropriate.

So I think it a worthwhile question to ask, "What are we going to do with any definition that we get?" A possible fear of some is that we are going to use it to draw boundaries for Christian fellowship.

One reason for seeking a definition, is to establish our identity. If we are doing this, the discussion is an intra-evangelical one. It is a discussion among us as to who we are. Others may be able to comment but the discussion is mainly for evangelicals. A defintion for such a reason can be used positively or negatively. The history of the Brethren, a group much given to defining themmselves, perhaps gives both the positive and the negative. The positive role of a definition is that it can give confidence enabling joining with others in projects, confident that one's own identity will not be lost. When I lived in Zambia, I got involved with Scripture Union. In that country, SU was dominated by United Church of Zambia and by the Brethren. One Brethren stalwart of the Zambian SU said that SU in England was similar, except that there the combination was CofE and Brethren. It seems that the strong sense of Brethren identity enabled them to work alongside Christians of quite a different stripe. Perhaps Gafcon might offer a recent example of something similar. The Conservative Evangelicals are sufficiently confident of their identity to make common cause with Anglo-Catholics, just as CofE and the Brethren have been able to work closely together. On a more local level, we learn from the Ugley Vicar blog that John Richardson works closely with Anglo-Catholics. But as the history of the Brethren shows, it does not always work like that. Sometimes the definition is used to isolate from other Christians. It marks the boundaries between us and them, where them are those with whom we do not associate. Thus the Brethren have an ability to fragment. This happened right at the beginning, in the split between Open and Closed Brethren. It had happened in Zambia. At times the wrangles over Evangelical Definition seems to be aimed at establishing who are not “us”, but “them”; to exclude or belittle. Thus one side calls the other faux-evangelicals or liberals, the other side call the first side fundamentalists or something similar.

So can we establish what people think the point of defining Evangelical is? There are good reasons but unless we know what someone is trying to do, we cannot know how appropriate their criteria are.

Adrian  - if you read Roger's post, he lists a few labels - that led to my question.  What about you - would you accept the label "Christian"?

Roger. Nersen wants you to have the label "liberal". Whether you wish to have this label or not, you are very welcome to come into my so labelled pew box. Perhaps we should all carry labels around our necks so that some know to whom they can refuse their fellowship.