A lion, a rooster, a billy-goat and Tommy Franks go to a bar...

Lee Irons at The Upper Register Blog has some interesting comments on those who claim to be Reformed but not Evangelical.

(2) The current disdain for “evangelicalism” in Reformed circles is also wrong because it places the accent on the distinctives of Reformed theology and practice instead of on what we have in common with evangelicalism. But what we have in common with evangelicals (being Christ-centered, cross-centered, and gospel-centered) is far, far more important than our distinctives (our Calvinistic soteriology, our covenant theology, our view of the church and the means of grace, etc.). The distinctives of Reformed theology and practice are useful only to the degree that they undergird and clarify the gospel, the evangel.

I'm not sure I get how Reformed distinctives are only useful in the way that he says. If they are true, they are true regardless if it helps to clarify the gospel or not. There are many truths that do not do that and are useful. Fortunately, the Reformed doctrine of justification by faith does this, but there is value to other doctrines say for instance the doctrine that there are angels. Perhaps you could think of a way that ties into the gospel, but I think you would have to stretch it to say that the doctrine of the existence of angels "undergirds and clarifies the gospel in a compelling way.

Having said that, I do agree with the premise that there is no need to reject Evangelical as a name for myself, though I also embrace many others such as Reformed, Protestant, World-Christian, and Christ Follower. I even go so far as to call myself a fundamentalist, but I don't mean 'narrow' nor do I mean that I want to establish a state based on religious law.