"more sensitive evangelicals are abandoning the brand"

The author’s take seems to me to be hypocritical and disingenuous. When he was getting something from the term, then he was proud to wear it. Now that he’s not, well, dump it. I would rather carry the label fundamentalist than evangelical myself, but lets remember that the original “hated brand” was “Christian”. Maybe it has more to do with the reproach we suffer as a Christian than that of a particular type of Christian.

We may desire to re-label if the term is not descriptive, but if it is just because “people don’t like us”, well, maybe we shouldn’t be so anxious to run from the reproach of Christ. After all, the world does hate the believer, and the believers in the book of Acts counted it an honor to suffer for His name. Maybe we should see it as a blessing instead of being so anxious to re-brand for “good press”.

“But nowadays few Americans associate evangelicals with anything good”

That is quite an indictment. I have to wonder about a pastor who writes in a secular newspaper to tell the world they have the right negative slant on evangelicals. Washington Post writers frequently criticize evangelicals (like many secular newspapers have done for years). I also don’t believe it. Do most Americans find little good in Tim Tebow? in Billy Graham? in Rick Warren? in World Vision? Dickerson’s church has “Evangelical” right in the name. So is he telling us that he can’t get anyone to come through the door anymore?

Didn’t Jesus tell us to expect that people would despise us if we follow him? Jesus said to his unbelieving brothers, “The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify of it that its works are evil.”(John 7:4) The article, speaking about loving one-another, is quite slanted and leaves out this truth completely. If the author had placed John 7:4 in his article and affirmed it, do you suppose the Washington Post would have published it?