It is a sign of desperation to blog about other people's blogs but this by Steve Holmes is worth it! I'm sure Steve's suggestion of a contoured approach to defining evangelicalism might helpfully re-frame the debate. I need some time (which I don't have this week) to think about:
- Despite Steve's approach isn't the nature of evangelicalism to define certain doctrines as core and to exclude those who don't hold them? In that sense Evangelicalism is a sect within Christianity one of whose defining doctrines is that ecclesiology is secondary; but who often prove to be fissiparous.
- Do we need some sort of account that recognises the difference between evangelical (which I think I still am on the basis of my conviction that the coming of Jesus is good news) and Evangelical (as subscribing to the Evangelical Alliance statement of faith).
As I say, I need to read Steve's post when I've time to think further; I might be misunderstanding him or underestimating the significance of what he is saying. Nevertheless he has touched on an important subject.