Evangelical questions

Some are suggesting that it's time to get rid of the term evangelical -- see for example the comments Eugene's post generated. See also Scot's post from January and the responses.

Before we go too far, though, a few questions:

1. Since the term evangelical isn't negative everywhere in the world, what are we saying to the evangelicals in the rest of world when disassociate ourselves from the word? For example, in the part of the world where I live the term doesn't have the same baggage. Do we on the Islands and in Asia have to change, too, because some Americans think it's a bad word? What Americans do locally sends messages internationally.

2. To what extent are we buying into the whole marketing mentality when we have to change every time someone misinterprets what we're about or when we no longer sound sexy enough to the culture? Are we going to change again in 5 years when the new descriptor is seen as ancient and unfashionable (Oh, the joys of letting pop culture drive the bus).

3. Are we letting the dysfunctions of a fringe portion of the movement yank the chains of everyone? Evangelicalism is a big tent movement. Much of the reaction is against obnoxious and vocal actors on one of the minor stages.

4. What would we replace it with? What word has breadth, historical and biblical roots, and clearly communicates? For example, some have suggested that we replace it with missional. Missional is a good word, too. But it's not as broad as evangelical. Evangelical contains the missional emphases but also speaks to the authority of the Word. Furthermore, evangelical is a more connectional word -- historically used to describe an ethos which transcends localism and denominationalism. With what word are we going to replace evangelical?

There is still good news in evangelical. Perhaps we should hang tight with it a little longer. The tide comes in and goes out. Then it comes in again. And then it...