I am not convinced that Matthew 5:16 can be interpreted as an imperative, or even permission, to publicise the good works that Christians do in order to defend the good name of the Church. Given Jesus' overall teaching about the value of keeping our good works out of the public eye, and his own refusal to do miracles as a way of proving who He was, the meaning of Matthew 5:16 is surely that we should do our good works IN SUCH A WAY THAT as people may see them they will give glory to God rather than to us.

Publicising Christian good deeds will anyway be of limited value in rescuing the word "evangelical" in particular, since in the public mind evangelicals are famous for NOT doing these things, and publicising how much social action evangelicals in particular do will feel like "spin" and special pleading, more likely to backfire. It may work in more educate circles, perhaps even in the corridors of government, but it is not likely to cut much ice with ordinary people. And the Christian faith is struggling just as much on the ground as it is in the corridors of power.

I think those who were trying to rescue the word by putting something else with it were probably right. The question is whether they put the right word in there. "Biblical" and "committed" might press the right buttons for the faithful, but I don't think they have made an impression on people outside the Church. If we think that the evangelical social reform movement that was instrumental in the abolition of slavery is the best face of evangelicalism in terms of what non-Christians find convincing (as a kind of apologetics for evangelical Christianity), then perhaps "social evangelical" might do it? It would mostly open up a discussion about what such a term means, and having our roots in that movement might make socially-aware non-Christians give us a second look. Of course, we also have to make sure that OUR church's roots really ARE there...

David Muir   7 April 2008

A new report suggests that the contribution of faith community congregations to the UK economy is well in excess of £2.1 billion (see http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1628). Could someone do a similar study to estimate the value of evangelicalism to society?

Stephen M   16 April 2008

Chris Watkin correctly points out (footnote 7) that I failed to engage with the differences between evangelicalism and fundamentalism in my Evangelicals Now article.

(a) I was being slightly provocative. I certainly agree that it is hardly ever profitable today for us to wear the fundamentalist nametag. The problem is the baggage of the term, not its basic meaning.
(b) I didn't want to overcomplicate something that began as a brief talk in my local church.
(c) I've never seen a clear-cut difference. Fundamentalist can be simply a term of abuse for someone who is more conservative than we are. Watkin mentions historic differences. Yes and no. I'm no expert, but it seems to me that the 18th century evangelical revival came out of a context where the Church of England had become utterly dead and nominal (William Hague's biography of Wilberforce paints a vivid picture), whereas 20th century American fundamentalism arose at a time when the mainstream denominations were totally dominated by liberalism. Not so different. Watkin cites John Stott's discussion, which is superb, as always. Stott describes ten tendancies of fundamentalism. He admits the danger of creating a caricature. Indeed, I doubt that there are many in any camp who would see his tendancies as desireable. At the same time, Stott's analysis could be slightly rewritten to warn of the dangers of the opposite tendancies for those who react so strongly against the term fundamentalist. Francis Schaeffer often reminded us that we seldom have the luxury of fighting a battle on one front only. If we back off too strongly to avoid falling off one cliff, we will find ourselves falling over a cliff on the other side.

Barry Seagren   25 April 2008

Many people in the church would regard themselves as evangelical while eschewing the label of Fundamentalist, whatever they or anyone else understand it to mean. The use "Fundamentalism" is not accurately drawn in the paper; the examples of 'fundamentalist humanism' or a fundamentalist foreign policy are reapplications of the term, rather than a general usage. With Hansard, there is no shortage of misapplications for any term held dear by a special interest group. If you look for the bizarre misuse or even widespread misunderstanding, you will find it. That 'Fundamentalist' is used as a marker of intense dogmatic belief, rather than a more nuanced meaning should not be surprising. The problem is about the level of general public debate, rather than specifically about any religious group.

"Given fundamentalism's Christian provenance, it is a particularly ill-fitting term to describe aspects of Islam". Why? Is the presumed misapplication explained by a general misunderstanding of the term (when in reality it means a reassertion of Christian orthodoxy)? Or are there in fact characteristics that Muslim and Christian fundamentalists share, making the term quite appropriate? I'm assuming here that Christians, having been responsible for the word, do not own it nor have the right to redefine it, according to its presumed original meaning. There do seem to be similarities: a particular, rather possessive, attitude to their scriptures; a conservative approach to social ordering; a judgmental attitude towards believers who are not of their number. And you could add to this - a sense that the rest of the world just doesn't understand them or treat them fairly in the public arena. Perhaps this area - the nature of fundamentalism in different religions - could be another topic for a Cambridge Paper?

Paul Moore   12 May 2008