I want to post two answers Rob Bell gave to the Boston Globe where he defines evangelical. Tomorrow I want to discuss something about a trend I've observed about the word "evangelical." What do you think of his definition?Q. What does it mean to you to be an evangelical?
A. [Rob Bell] 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. [Rob Bell] 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.
There is a fuller version online and this was in that fuller version:
Q: Is religion a part of that?
A: At the heart of the Christian story is resurrection, the belief that this word is good, and that, as a follower of Jesus, a belief that God hasnÃt abandoned the world, but is actively at work in the world. Even in the midst of what can look like despair and destruction there is a new creation present.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
What happens when words loose their meaning? Can the meaning be reclaimed: especially when the vast percentage of the world holds specific notions about a word's meaning? I often wonder if it is time that we abandon "evangelical" all together. It no longer possesses the intent that it once did, and i am not comfortable associating myself with the context it currently brings. i appreciate that rob and others are trying to reclaim it, i just think all of that work may be in vain. Why don't we just leave it alone and share what our faith communities actually believe? why cant we simply say we are done with the word all together?
Here's a link to a useful paper from the other side of the Atlantic which considers whether 'Evangelical' can be reclaimed:
http://www.jubilee-centre.org/document.php?id=207
Even in the UK, the problem is that when people hear 'Evangelical Christian' they often think 'George W Bush' or 'Sarah Palin', and if you don't fancy their politics, then...
I think that, like any piece of literature, genre and context are of key importance. And most of the people who have criticized Rob Bell's statements here are ignoring both.
1. This is a transcription of a journalistic interview. Many people have treated it as if it were an all-inclusive systematic treatise of Bell's theology. It isn't; interviews are conversational, and, as in any conversation, things get left out. You have to realize that.
2. We cannot take this quote from Bell and determine things about Bell's nature without considering the context in which it was said. First, he was doing an interview with the media. Who wouldn't see this as a chance to change some people's views about Evangelical Christianity? The first thing that he says is that evangelicalism isn't what most people assume it is: right-wing, anti-intellectual fundamentalism. Naturally, he would follow that up with something that is strikingly dissimilar with what most people assume when they hear "evangelical." And those things that he mentioned should probably be some of the natural responses to those who believe in the "evangelical Jesus," if you will: helping the poor, caring for the environment, and extending hope to the world.
If Bell had said, "evangelicalism is all about telling people about Jesus." The interview, in most of the readers' minds, would have been over because they would have turned the page. They would have assumed that this guy is another religious nut job and would have ignored him.
Finally, you cannot remove this quote from the totality of Bell's body of work and say that it somehow gives us a more clear picture of where his heart is at than anything else does.
We all know that the Bible in fact announces "There is no God."
I'm on board with what Rob is saying here. He didn't give the whole picuture, but he's making a valid point. We do come across as unthinking, even when that's not fair, and lock in step followers of the Republican Party. Very troubling indeed.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.