Monday Morning Insights

Photo of Todd
    .

    Rob Bell aims to restore true meaning of “evangelical”

    Bookmark and Share
    Rob Bell aims to restore true meaning of “evangelical”

    ...That's the title of a recent interview the Rob Bell gave to The Boston Globe.  But what, exactly, does Rob think an 'evangelical' is?

    Q. What does it mean to you to be an evangelical?

    A. I take issue with the word to a certain degree, so I make a distinction between a capital E and a small e. I was in the Caribbean in 2004, watching the election returns with a group of friends, and when Fox News, in a state of delirious joy, announced that evangelicals had helped sway the election, I realized this word has really been hijacked. I find the word troubling, because it has come in America to mean politically to the right, almost, at times, anti-intellectual. For many, the word has nothing to do with a spiritual context.

    Q. OK, how would you describe what it is that you believe?

    A. I embrace the term evangelical, if by that we mean a belief that we together can actually work for change in the world, caring for the environment, extending to the poor generosity and kindness, a hopeful outlook. That’s a beautiful sort of thing.

    Q. I’m struck by the fact that I don’t hear a lot of explicitly religious language, or mentions of Jesus, from you.

    A. I think we have enough religious people who are going around trying to convert people. My guard is up when somebody is trying to convert me to their thing. Are you talking to me because you actually are interested in this subject, because you care about me as a human, or am I one more possible conversion that will make you feel good about your religiosity? I don’t have any embarrassment about my religion, and it’s not that I’m too cool, but I would hope that the Jesus message would come through, hopefully through a full humanity.

    You can read more here...

    Couple of questions for you:

    1.  Is Bell right?  Do most people think of 'evangelical' more in political terms than spiritual ones?

    2.  It seems that Bell says the term is too 'political', but his definition is environmental, dealing with the poor, etc.  True, these are 'gospel' issues as well, but most people define these as more 'political' than 'religious', don't they?

    And I think Bell's last answer is what makes many people question where he's coming from.  I understand what he's trying to say, just wonder if there's a better way to say it (probably not... since he's Rob Bell and I'm not).  smile

    Your thoughts?

    Todd

    Comments

    if you want a Globally Recognized Avatar (the images next to your profile) get them here. Once you sign up, they will displayed on any website that supports them.

    1. george ramirez on Thu, October 01, 2009

      If we use Rob Bell definition of evangelical we will all be enviormental, social gospel, positive thinking world changers.

      I agree that the political right has hijacked the term evangelical but that was a mainstream media tag that stuck since the moral majority.

      Evangelicals are Christians who share the message that Jesus is the Savior of the world and call people follow Him. Evangelicals believe the Bible is the Word of God. Evangelicals are christians who understand the importance of living a life that honors God.

    2. h3 on Thu, October 01, 2009

      The Greek word from which the English comes (euangelion) means, literally, “good news” (gospel). So an evangelical person is, by definition, defined by the good news, which is the spiritual reconciliation made possible by Jesus Christ. Being an evangelical is first a spiritual concern. So, the desire to help people hear, understand, and choose to align with that good news is what evangelicals ought to be unified upon. How that is accomplished is secondary.

      Like with most things, an intentional pro-activeness is typically the more fruitful approach. When I hear about “soaking” methods of evangelism (“it will just come out”) I wonder if they really are concerned with helping more people find Jesus, or polishing up the ones who already found Him. Not aimed at Bell’s ministry in particular, but does such a ministry grow because new people come to the Kingdom or because that’s the current “cool” and “hip” place to be?

    3. andysikora on Thu, October 01, 2009

      George… are you saying that being “enviormental, social gospel, positive thinking world changers” doesn’t honor God?  It feels like the opposite would be true…

      Bell responded to the interview that was posted on his Twitter page indicating that much of what he had said had been cut out.  He expands on that more here: http://twitter.com/realrobbell

      Here are the tweets…
      # Ever done an interview and then read it and realized they left out most of what you said? Maddening.2:19 PM Sep 29th from TweetDeck

      # A bit of history: the word evangelical comes from the Roman Empire propaganda machine- it was an announcement proclaiming Caesar is Lord…2:33 PM Sep 29th from TweetDeck

      # The first Christians took the phrase and tweaked it, saying “Jesus is Lord.” That, of course, could get you killed. No one challenges Caesar2:35 PM Sep 29th from TweetDeck

      # To confess Jesus is Lord was to insist that peace does not come to earth through coercive violence but through sacrificial love…2:39 PM Sep 29th from TweetDeck

      # That is still the question, is it not? Whose way? Jesus or Caesar? Power and might and domination - or bloody, thirsty, hanging on a cross?2:44 PM Sep 29th from TweetDeck

    4. Peter Hamm on Thu, October 01, 2009

      I did wonder how much was left out.

      Bell is right, the word has been co-opted to mean something it shouldn’t.

      And, in context with his writings and the things I’ve seen and heard him say, he’s right about what it should be. Pity that important things he said were edited out.

    5. Gerry on Thu, October 01, 2009

      I am struck by the irony here.  Bell complains about the politicizing of the word ‘evangelical.’ Then he complains about the editing of his comments in an interview conducted by a newspaper that no doubt has its own political agenda.  Is he that naive?

    6. Vince on Thu, October 01, 2009

      We have to give Rob Bell and others like him some latitude and understand that the conversation he is engaged in is so much bigger than the little sound bites and articles we tend to get uptight about.

      He is trying to re-earn the broken trust our culture has for ‘Christians’ and ‘evangelicals’

    7. Richard on Thu, October 01, 2009

      Really?  “Fox News, in a state of delirious joy.”  I’m sure that’s how it came across.  Bell has no problems with politicizing faith, as long as it serves his agenda.  Sounds like a repackaging of the social gospel from a century ago, now with drums and electric guitars.  Interesting how those who bang the “I’m an environmentalist” drum the loudest leave no smaller carbon footprint than those who quietly go about the business of being good stewards.  And the cliche-ridden “Roman Empire propaganda machine”?  All Bell’s doing is profiting within the same system, only he can feel less guilty about it because he’s being prophetic.  Okay, I’m done venting.  I feel so much better…

    8. CS on Thu, October 01, 2009

      While Bell may be right in that the word, “evangelical,” may mean something slightly different today, there’s one thing for certain: I’d also avoid whatever definition of the word that Bell might interpret it to be.  His theology is messed up.


      CS

    9. Todd Bergman on Thu, October 01, 2009

      Bell does a great job of engaging people to dig deeper. I would hope that he is doing the same by this attempt to redefine evangelical. But my feeling is that he is just as culpable in using the word for his personal agenda as political pundits.

      I am concerned about “the Jesus message” he refers to. It sounds like the message is of preeminent importance while the person and role of Jesus Christ is completely subordinate. If so, then I feel that Bell has stepped out of evangelicalism.

    10. Pastor Matt Parkins on Sat, October 03, 2009

      Actually, “evangelical” just means to be in accordance with the gospels - which probably means to take them as infallible.  It doesn’t infer belief that the whole bible is the “word of God” either, but many denominations would use “evangelical” to mean belief that the whole bible is inerrant and infallible.

      The idea of putting a movement around it is ludicrous and I certainly take issue with it.  Perhaps you mean conservative or right-wing Christians?

    11. Page 1 of 1 pages

      Post a Comment

    12. (will not be published)

      Remember my personal information

      Notify me of follow-up comments?

    Sponsors