I know this is, in blogosphere time, old news, but this blog is new and currently on the subject of evangelical definitions, so fuh-giva-ness please.
Bell defines evangelical for a Boston Globe interviewer thusly:
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. (Source)
I don’t know who wouldn’t embrace that sort of beautiful thing, including non-performance artist evangelicals whose self-defining might actually include the evangel.
(And yes, yes, I know Bell does not deny the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. He just apparently finds these events peripheral to evangelical definition. (I got accused of meanness for saying this elsewhere.))
October 20th, 2009 | 4:59 pm | #1
Let me say this plainly: Rob Bell is a shyster — a hipster version of Joel Osteen. Joel Osteen also does not “deny” the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus — but, like Brer Bell, he never really seems to get to it when he has a chance to really tell lost people that Jesus is Lord and Christ.
I’ll be the mean one, Jared. I’ve had more practice than you.
October 20th, 2009 | 6:11 pm | #2
I notice that preaching the Gospel is glaringly absent. How can anyone claim to be an Evangelical and not be about preaching repentance from sin?
October 20th, 2009 | 10:27 pm | #3
So, are you guys being “gospel legalists”….I’m now soooo confused.
October 21st, 2009 | 12:15 am | #4
Danny, anything’s possible.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact