If I were a member, I wouldn’t have a problem with them amending the doctrinal statement, it’s just the present amendment was entirely too much and, IMO, was just too reformed/anti-NP. So basically, not a bad idea to amend the statement, just a bad choice of what to include. If I had to guess, I’d say that was probably the complaint from most of the members as well. You can’t try to make it an all reformed, southern baptist, or anti-NP group; that’s just too narrow and true evangelicalism accepts those who are none of the above.

On another note, Denny, it doesn’t surprise me that you would want to do this. Your narrow view of what an evangelical is is truly disturbing. You believe all evangelicals should be just like you in their doctrine and politics. While there are some unifying doctrines that make evangelicals, the list is not broad, and the politics thing is just silly. If they’re not like you, then they’re just “evangelicals.” That’s sad.

The ETS is a man-made institution, Luther was just a man, ‘evangelical’ is just a word, and as far as ‘Evangelicalism,… perhaps we could best say that Evangelicalism is as Evangelicalism does.

Based on that maxim, and what Evangelicalism has come to mean in our contemporary context, James Dobson is “more evangelical” than Luther. If Evangelicalism were able to be defined more along the lines of the ETS amendment proposed here then Denny Burk might be said to be “more evangelical” then Luther.

So what?

Our concern should be whether the moniker has any usefulness in terms of our mission of being salt and light to a lost and dying world, building the kingdom of God and strengthening the Church.

I think we actually agree on this!

I’m simply arguing the value of a more generous, historical orthodoxy married to gospel zeal in defining Evangelicalism as the best was for the term to retain (or regain) its usefulness and relevance.

At the end of the day, if “Evangelicalism is as Evangelicalism does,” it won’t matter how the ETS defines its doctrinal statement in terms of what it really means to be evangelical.

I’m just trying to do my part to help the ETS not amend itself to irrelevance.

After all, don’t the Reformed Baptists already have club?

Our wonderful little LCMS Lutheran parish has a recent history of this unfortunate bent. But there is also a burgeoning sense of liturgical renewal in our parish, which is exciting.

At any rate, thanks for the insight, Mason. My good friend Barry Jones from DTS suggested the same thing to me recently regarding Luther’s original usage of the term ‘evangelical.’

The first evangelicals were liturgical, sacramental, catholic, and orthodox Lutherans. They believed they had inherited the best of Western Christendom, which guaranteed the proclamation and the preservation of Jesus Christ for the salvation of the world. Now the term means none of these things. I like the term, but only when qualified by words such as catholic. Unfortunately, many of our own parishes are trying to ape the current evangelicals for various and sundry reasons. Kyrie Eleison.
+Mason

I had the pleasure of attending the 2007 Wheaton Theology Conference: Ancient Faith for the Church’s Future.

The papers from this conference have been published in book form.

Ancient Faith for the Church’s Future
by Mark Husbands (Editor), Jeffrey P. Greenman (Editor)

I would highly recommend the book.

Denny… you too. Please read this book!

The only ‘dog’ of the whole conference was Tony Jones’s contribution from the perspective of the ‘emergent church.’ But his paper was wisely and rightly rejected for publication in the book, weeks of sophomoric whining from Tony in the weeks following that decision not withstanding.