Evangelicalism has fallen on hard times, and some—including myself—have wondered from time to time if we could simply avoid the problems surfacing by using ‘orthodoxy’ instead.  I would argue, however, that we need to push through the present challenges and retain not only the term, 'Evangelicalism,' but also revive what it is: a particular movement in Christianity with its theological identity and mission.  This post focusses on the historical and theological identity of Evangelicalism.  I I would like to suggest that the terms are not equal and, in fact, Evangelicalism captures three movements in history: early Christian orthodoxy, Reformational theology, and spiritual awakening. First, however, we need to appreciate why ‘Evangelical’ has become problematic.  There are several reasons, but the key one, in my view, lies in how the term ‘Evangelicalism’ is used over against other group identities and ends up being understood in part by them in various contexts.  So, for example

  We are living during a time of major change in the Church.  For some, it is a devastating time of the demise of their denomination.  Yet this is also a time of Reformation--or potential Reformation--of the same magnitude of the 16th century.  If we are to have true Reformation, however, we need to do more than simply stand still while others drift into heresy.  We need to ask what we should do differently.  In this post, I turn to offer some thoughts about the need for teaching in the local church.  In view are what we teach, who is taught, where the teaching occurs, and how teaching is superior to so much preaching. In 1 Corinthians 2.1-5, Paul contrasts Greek and Roman rhetorical practices with his own proclamation.   Rhetoric is defined as the art of persuasion.   Paul explains it as lofty speech and plausible words of wisdom (vv. 1, 4), or the wisdom of men (v. 5).   His speech was defined not by the medium of the message but the message itself, not by clever speech but by a demo