Why I am still an evangelical

Ever since I have called myself a Christian, I have identified as an evangelical. However, this does not mean that I have not changed or modified my views over time - I have, quite significantly. The question is, how can I continue to identify as an evangelical, despite these changes?

The thing is, I take a number of labels, that others might not consider particularly compatible: Christian, Evangelical, Green, Anarchist, feminist. There are those who might object to me using these labels, mainly because they don't completely define me - none of them are complete, even all together , they are not a complete definition of me. Each provides insights into the others, where they differ, that is the point of growth and development.

So how do I still justify calling myself by the same label? The best definition I have found of Evangelicalism defines it by the four principles of Conversionism, Activism, Biblicism and Crucicentricity. I want to explore each of these, what they mean (I am aware that these are terms that need some explanation).

1. Conversionism. This means a belief in a conversion process, something that I still stand by. However, I am not and more so insistent that everyone must have a datable conversion experience. Actually, I probably never was, because for some people, the conversion process is a long and slow development. However I still think that for some people, this is sudden. And all people need to have a conversion - need to change from an old way of thinking to a new one. In most cases, this needs to be multiple times in their lives.

2. Activism. This is a belief that one part of Christianity is about doing something practical. It is not just about a spiritual way of life, but about putting this into action. This has changed in nature, but not in principle - I have always tried to be involved in activities or organisations outside the narrow definition of the church, and I am currently a member of the Green party, which is one part of my activism.

3. Biblicism. This is defined as "a strict following of the teachings of the bible". Now there is a loaded concept if ever I heard one: I still follow the teachings of the bible strictly, as I understand them. However, my understanding of what this means, of how the bible should be interpreted, of how the writings are properly understood, has changed significantly. It does not mean literalism - taking the words of a translated bible as the clear and defined words of God. Understanding and interpreting the meaning is a far more complex process, something that I have enjoyed exploring over the last 30 years. And through all of that, I still believe in doing my best to follow the teachings of the bible, as best I can.

4.Crucicentricity. This means that he cross - that is, the atoning act of Jesus on the cross - is at the centre of the our faith. Once again, the meaning of this act, the understanding of it, has changed and developed over time. I would at one time have accepted PSA as the only or core understanding of atonement.

PSA - Penal Substitutionary Atonement - is one theology of atonement. It has its points, and it has its problems. There are half a dozen other ways of understanding it, each of which has its own problems and positives, and some of them are contradictory. I do not believe that there is one simple answer or interpretation - all of them have some truth, none of them have all the truth.

So, I still hold to the core principles of evangelicalism. In fact, I would argue that these are even more important to me now than they were. But everything that I believe within these has changed - that is growth and development. the more I learn to understand the bible, the more I realise how big, diverse, complex and all-embracing is the Christian faith. If faith isn't growing, then it is probably dead.