We’ll let Joe arbitrate whether or not that’s a topic for the future. ;-)

Agreed.

The word “church” is an otherwise arcane word as well. It conjures up all kinds of ideas for those “outside.”

But, like gospel, it is a good biblical word that has life in it. (Not meaning to be spiritual here, just saying it can be useful still.)
I like fighting for the word “evangelical” the same I’d like keeping the word “church.” It’s cosa nostra. :-) Worth preserving, if possible.

But definitely abandon-able if necessary. (The label, that is, not what the label signifies.)

Just as a clarifier, I would prefer a term which itself is a clarifier. The word “evangelical” is an otherwise-arcane word — nobody outside of churches knows what an “evangel” is, or knows if something is “evangelic”. I’m just saying that if this is our label, let’s use one that people will “get”. Like “Proclaimers” — or how about “messengers”? I also like “scum of the Earth,” but while it starts amazing conversations it lacks curb appeal.

Now, that said, if “evangelical” makes people think you burn books, or “hate fags”, or are militant homeschoolers (disclaimer: I’m a homeschool dad), or want war to defeat Islam, or that you wiggle on the floor like a snake during worship services, then let’s be honest: it doesn’t mean what it meant in the 1530′s.

And if that’s the case, let’s move on. Let’s find a label that works — that tells people who we really are.

That’s all I’m saying: there’s nothing biblically-mandated which says we must be “evangelicals”. I think fighting to preserve a term like that is one of the reasons Fundamentalism got subdued.