what is an evangelical?

I've been studying for my Australian church history 4 exam. Before I have any more silly comments from the English, yes, there is such a thing as Australian history. Today I was trying to get my head around the study of history and definitions of evangelicalism, and was reading an article by Moore's own Rev Dr Mark Thompson (Is there any point being 'evangelical'? By Mark D. Thompson from Briefing #313).

Here are just 3 paragraphs that really struck me as I was reading:

'It is possible, after all, to define evangelicalism in such a way as to exclude some of those with whom we might wish to associate ourselves. Was Martin Luther an evangelical? Yet he believed in the real presence of Christ in the bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper. Was John Wesley an evangelical? Yet he was self-consciously Arminian rather than Reformed in his understanding of the way human responsibility and divine sovereignty operate in our salvation. Does it make sense to speak of an evangelicalism that would exclude Billy Graham because of his willingness to work with those outside of evangelical circles for the proclamation of the gospel or John Stott because in debate with David Edwards he once pondered the strengths of the case for annihilation rather than eternal punishment? Is there room for concluding that someone might be wrong—perhaps profoundly wrong—without disenfranchising them? Is all error heretical?'

'Yet alternative ideas rarely, if ever, come to us in a disembodied form. Real people espouse them, men and women for whom Christ came and died. There is a generosity that is appropriate: The same Scriptures which speak of contending for the faith and resisting false teaching call on us to avoid a quarrelsome spirit (2 Tim 2:24–25) and a predilection for controversy (1 Tim 6:3–5). There may well come a point when a person must be condemned as a false teacher who stubbornly resists correction by the Scriptures and who is injuring God’s people. Such people do exist today as Jesus and the apostles warned us they would. Yet in such cases concern for the person is every bit as important as the repudiation of their error. As Paul told the Thessalonians about one who would not obey his words, “Do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother” (2 Thess 3:15). Standing together before Christ on the last day is much more important than winning the argument today. How much more then when we are not talking about those who deliberately refuse the word of God but rather those who differ from us in how they understand it?

In other words, love and faithfulness are not rivals but the most intimate of companions. It is our faithfulness to the apostolic gospel that drives us to love in much more than a superficial way, to seek a unity that is profoundly more than mere show. True orthodoxy is generous, but not in the sense of blurring boundaries between truth and error or between what is essential and what is secondary. It is generous in its recognition that all of us are prone to error and sin and all of us need a saviour. A disagreement with my brother or sister should drive me back to the pages of the Bible, not to the trenches to dig in for the battle. Respecting one another’s opinions should never be an excuse to avoid testing those opinions by the word of God.'


If you'd like to read the whole article, it is available online at http://www.matthiasmedia.com.au/briefing/webextra/oct04_point.htm