Blogotional
It' s a geographically specific suggestion though isn't it? Evangelical doesn't have the political connotation here or elsewhere like it seems to have for you. So I'd resist using it only politically. I like the term as a broad brush - without getting utopian about it.
I?m not sure that an evangelical ought to "win the world" yet lose those within his or her own ranks - ranks meaning fellow evangelicals, and beyond that, fellow Christians (Catholics, Orthodox). What good is it to win over a non-believer but alienate other believers?
Terrific - haloscan ate half my comment. In a nutshell - I think their is a false dichotomoy in that quote.
We are called to evangelise unbelievers, not other denominations.
We will "lose" some people - because some things cannot be compromised. Hence the split in the Methodist church here and the different positions people are stating within the PCUSA right now.
I appreciate the point Bonnie made but I didn't see any qualifiers - and that can become a unity at the expense of truth mandate.
Instead of laying it on the individual evangelical how about we acknowledge the role of church structure and leadership. If for example a denom is going to ordain homosexual ministers then they can expect a response from the wider church. It sends a message to the world.
In other words - we can be so busy playing nice with the broad brush of evangelicalism that we lose those in the world who might hear.
i agree that we cannot have unity at the expense of truth, but here in the US most of the "fight" over who is an evangelical is about minor theological stuff, not stuff like homosexual ordination.
Not sure how to solve the geographical problems you cite, I don't have much perspective on the rest of the world save for your blog and a few others.
Missionaries I am in contact with don't other with the word.
Thanks for replying John. Yes, I agree over the minor stuff - I have realised that I have litle patience for it when it becomes silly disputing. I think issues can be discussed and explored but the quibbling stuff is a waste of time.
I'm not sure what you mean by ""other" with the word" - ok, just occurred to me you might mean "bother" - since I am so good at typos I see them everywhere 
Interesting view.
I'm planning on entering the discussion, but want to say something here on a bit of the history relational to what you are proposing ( getting more unity -by eschewing divisive terms...if I am reading you right... and relegating "Evangelical "to a type of political label)
When first saved I went into a "Church of Christ" denomination. The irony of that, of course, is that the whole stated purpose of said denomination was that it would not *be* a denomination. They believed that sectarianism was inimical to Christianity and that we all ought to go back to being "The Church of Christ" simple and proper. The rest, they say, is history... as it it soon broke into some of its own sects based upon disagreements on such things as use of intruments, etc... things still disputed to this day.
The point here is,that for all our good intentions, how do we circumvent the inevitable fracturing that comes from several different causes, some truly spiritual and some simply our "flesh" ?
(oh the wickedness of our selfish flesh!)
This is where your proposal will break down, I believe. And I've been thinking about looking at this view of Evangelicals as a political term. It holds some implied questions. such as "what is the place of politics for the Christian?"
Wonderful thought provoking post you've written here... really gets the brain juices working.
Commenting by HaloScan
