Evangelicalism is adaptable. It finds ways to express the gospel in virtually every culture and subculture. Can you say "Hip hop church" or "extreme sports ministry"?

Evangelicalism is active. It isn't content to just "go through the motions."

Evangelicalism is entrepreneurial. It's constantly starting new initiatives and launching new ministries. In this way, it's self-correcting. If some doctrine or practice gets out of balance, the movement has a way of launching needed countermovements.

good thing about evangelicals: focus on the bible.

Your points are good, but - after taking a step away from the conversation - i realize that i don't need to be evangelical. Jesus doesn't call me to that. Jesus doesn't call any of us to that. I need not spend my time defending evangelicalism. Evangelicalism will pass and something new will emerge. However, being a christ-follower will remain and nothing will replace that.

you wrote: "The irreducible minimum of evangelicalism is the gospel and the need to respond to it and the work of God through the new birth." I'll agree with that statement, but i think the problem lies in our lack of definition of the gospel. What is the Gospel? I think recent christianity has mis-used the word and, therefore, i would guess a large percentage of born-again christians couldn't tell you what the "gospel" really is.

What do you think we do well? Here’s the test: Can you affirm what we are doing well without saying one critical word? Try it.

Okay, evangelicals have been - and continue to be - at the center and forefront of work for social and economic justice.

And these days, many evangelicals are finally getting that significant work needs to be done toward racial reconciliation along various ethnic lines.

I would like to challenge (NOT criticize, but just push back a bit) you, however, over the point that evangelicals re "good at being properly ecumenical." I'd agree if ecumenicism is understood as being oriented only within protestant circles. Evangelicals have a long way to go toward being fully ecumenical with respect to Catholic and Orthodox Christian communities. I'd even say that in every church in which I've served in ministry (all of which have been evangelical congregations), there still exists a strong orientation toward anti-Catholicism that borders on exclusivism. Evangelicals are, indeed, good at being ecumenical with other evangelical protestants but could use a lot of work toward existing ecumenically toward protestant groups who are theologically different and especially toward Catholics and the Orthodox.

There, Gosh Darnit!, I tried my best simply to affirm but, in the end, it seems there's always more work to be done.

The irreducible minimum of evangelicalism is the gospel and the need to respond to it and the work of God through the new birth.

As much as I would like to affirm what "evangelicals" are doing well, I don't think I can because even what you've said is the irreducible minimum isn't itself even small enough. There are "evangelicals" who believe that all we need to do is respond to the Gospel and think that God working through the new birth is a step beyond what every Christian is called to (Free Grace theology). There are also "evangelicals" who believe that response isn't always necessary (think about Graham's words on people who haven't heard the gospel). Therefore, I can't affirm what "evangelicals" do well because I do not believe that this thing called "evangelicals" really exist in any worthwhile way.

This is the natural outcome of the ecumenism that people here are praising. If we spread ourselves out so broadly without any common bond between us, a creed or confession or statement of faith, etc., then at the end of the day all we have is an eclectic bunch of people whose only shared belief is that they are indeed "evangelical." This is why, in my opinion, the "orthopraxy begets orthodoxy" approach to Bible interpretation that certain people endorse just doesn't hold water.

Scot, I'd like to agree with you, however, I'm not sure I'm on board with the actual examples you gave. And some of the examples seem, to me, to merely beg the question of definition.

"We align ourselves with others--all others, in fact--who embrace the gospel." Sure, but who's gospel? Or, better said, whose interpretation of the gospel? Even within the broad expanse that is evangelicalism you're going to get a lot of divergence around that topic.

"Evangelicals believe in the Bible". But, what exactly does this mean? As you wrote, this could mean anything from a word for word dictation from God, to a sense that truth is evident in the metanarrative of God's interaction with humankind. Is that unity around "believing in the Bible?"

But more than anything else, I'd say that the term "evangelicalism" is so broad these days as to be almost meaningless. How can we "do things well" when we can't even agree on who we are, on "who's in" and "who's out"?

I guess, at the end of the day, considering the multi-form nature of the movement that you did a good job of describing in your intro, the question is: Is this term worth saving? Is the term meaningful? And, ultimately, is organization around the term, fruitful?

I wish a recognizable woman’s name would have come to mind for two of those categories.

I whole heartedly agree with the interdenominational aspect of evangelicalism. A woman's name that came to mind when reading the above quote was Aimee Semple McPherson, the founder of the Foursquare Church. She had the cornerstone of Angelus Temple, the first Foursquare church started January 1, 1923, engraved to read, "Dedicated unto the cause of inter-denominational and worldwide evangelism." My prayer is that we continue to reach across our neighborhoods and join hands with other churches not of our movement and set about kingdom work.

I think the frustration I have with the Evangelical movement is this: there are many things we have been historically good at that we are getting worse at. Set aside trying to make Evangelicals into better Christians for the moment; we could do a lot just to call Evangelicals to be better Evangelicals.

The "strengths" mentioned so far are getting more scarce, at least in my experience. I see more emphasis on rule-following than new birth, more institutional habit than entrepreneurship, more suspicion than ecumenism, more emphasis on emotional experience than transformed living, more passive spectating than active participation.

Perhaps one trait I'd say is still a strength is the emphasis on theology, or what I would rather call an emphasis on teaching. This is certainly my experience in my recent church-search (having recently moved). Evangelical churches, in general, emphasize teaching in their Sunday services, their Sunday School classes, their small groups.

And I will add one positive to the list: I think there is a growing recognition among evangelicals of the call for Christians to care for the natural world, and there are new partnerships between evangelical and environmental movements.

Evangelicals truly care about people's relationship with God and are good at reinventing the way we communicate the gospel while staying true to the gospel.

Scot, thank you for providing us this excercise! This is an important thing for us to remember.

The first question I would have is "Could you please define what you mean as 'evangelical'?" In a recent poll, I read that more than 40% of "evangelicals" don't believe that Jesus is the only way. If that's so, then the irreducible minimun you mention may no longer exist?

So I would like to agree with you and appreciate the reminder to think on "whatsoever things are of good report," but I would like a definition first of the word. That, it seems to me, is the real question: What/who are we exactly talking about?" Thanks.

Phl 4:8 Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable-if anything is excellent or praiseworthy-think about such things.

Good word Scot thanks.

Evangelicals are good at transcending class issues; many evangelical churches in my city (including my own...) embrace a wide diversity when it comes to class status. Evangelicals get excited when a church reaches out to the least of these as well as the richest of these. Our denomination seeks to establish/serve churches in rural and urban settings, small towns and suburbs. The class/socio-economic diversity is good and it is encouraged.

I speak as an outsider, though Evangelicism runs in my blood to a point. As a Lutheran (In Germany, Lutherans are actually called Evangelicals), I find my peers frequently are disparaging of Evangelicals for many reasons.

However, I have always admired the passion you bring to being Church. You, as a group, carry on the tradition of the revival meetings, believing that the God we worship deserves not just our trust, but all the energy we can muster. Energy can always be channeled poorly. However, it's absence is irreplaceable.

I wish a recognizable woman’s name would have come to mind for two of those categories...Anne Graham Lott...the best preacher in Billy's family, and a wonderful example of evangelical ;)

As a Canadian, i am often amused at the dynamic conversation that Christianity south of the 49th seems to be having for itself. Perhaps if only one could gain a broader perspective to the effect of the Gospel on our Global village, or even visit the post-Christian world of Canada or Europe, one might see the argument as unnecessary.

It would appear to me that like all other movements (even movements of the Holy Spirit), evangelicalism - as an "ism" - is a contextually based movement. And like all contexts, the American one will change too, and evangelicalism will have served its purpose.

I too am proud to be an evangelical - if, by being an evangelical you mean being a child of God (in every biblical sense of the word). And, yes, evangelicals are good in believing, emphasizing, insisting and living the doctrine of the Sovereignty of God. Think J.I.Packer and his 'Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God' and 'Knowing God.'

Ecumenism, new birth, theology and personal tranformation are the strangest bed-fellows with too much to lose and nothing to gain! For a wholesome change, let us try first-hand and personal knowledge of Christ without which no single-minded servanthood in charge of God's secret truths and faithfulness is possiible (1 Cor. 4: 1-2).

Scot, thanks for opening up the dialogue like this and for pointing out what some are doing well. I would like to point out that the focus should not so much be defining "evangelicalism" as much as it should be on being biblical Christians. That means TWO THINGS: 1) we believe the Bible to be God's perfect word and 2) we seek to live it. To me that is the umbrella of biblical Christianity and I pray that it would also define "evangelicalsim". We must love God with our hearts, souls, minds and strength AND we must love others as ourselves.

I would want to add a corrective to most of the comments. That would be "some Evangelicals do (insert idea here) well." All of these are overly broad. While I understand that this type of exercise requires generalizations, what might be more helpful is, "My local body is good at..." The generalizations allow us to be broadly critical without making any changes. The personalized look at our local bodies forces us to figure out where we are and where we should be going.