> Many of these discussions on science and the church persist in
>the mistaken idea that "the evangelical church" is THE church. If
>"evangelical" is being used in the sense of American Evangelicalism, as
>seems to be the case here, this is simply wrong.
Ah, we do eventually get to definitions don't we. Let me try to say what I
think an evangelical is. This will probably really get me into hot water.
I think an evangelical is one who has accepted Jesus Christ as his savior
from sin through an act of repentance and subsequent obedience. Acts
2:37,38; 16:30,31; Rom 10:9,10
Many things could be added to flesh out the definition, but I think this is
the core that differentiates the evangelical. It goes without saying that
evangelicals are found in every kind of church, for instance Catholic or
Lutheran, but not all members of churches are evangelical (or even Christian
for that matter).
In the context of my post I think that evangelicals take a high view of
scripture and so are particularly vulnerable to the claim that one position
in the science, faith discussion is biblical and all others are not. The
reason I think that ASA needs to find a wider voice is because ASA'ers
generally take a high view of scripture but do not insist that one view of
the science, faith debate is the only biblical one. The ASA could be like
oil on troubled waters.