An Evangel-less Evangelicalism

I have sometimes struggled with how to describe my "religious views" in the profile section of social networking sites. I have used the term "evangelical" because I think it describes and puts one amongst a broader group within the "body of Christ" than just one denomination. Now in North America it seems that it has become so broad that many are claiming the term and fewer and fewer people understand the history behind and can define the meaning of it. I certainly would not claim to be "fundamentalist" anymore because the meaning of that has changed so much too and the same thing is happening with "evangelical" but going in the opposite direction. In the online dictionary Wikipedia, "evangelicalism" is defined as follows:
Most adherents consider its key characteristics to be: a belief in the need for personal conversion (or being "born again"); some expression of the gospel in effort; a high regard for biblical authority; and an emphasis on the death and resurrection of Jesus.

That is actually pretty close, as the word "evangel" comes from a Greek word meaning "good news" or "Gospel". It is that we all were lost in sin and Jesus Christ the true God , true man took on Himself the whole penalty and guilt of our sin that we could have eternal life through faith in Christ alone and his atoning work on the cross.

Now this past week Rob Bell from Mars Hill Bible Church in Grand Rapids MI does a quite notorious interview in the Boston Globe where he redefines "evangelical" to suit his own preferences. The interview is with Michael Paulson, the Globe's religious reporter who entitles it "Bell aims to restore true meaning of evangelical."

I had thought that probably the label "follower of Jesus' would be a good one to adopt but if you read the whole Boston Globe interview it seems that Bell is redefining that also. With him it is more about man renewing the creation than about Jesus renewing the heart.
Below is what Phil Johnson from Team Pyro wrote about the interview and Bell's answers:

"Performance Artist"
See, this kind of stuff is why I keep saying the historic meaning of the word evangelical will probably never be recovered. (You might want to read The Boston Globe's religion section and then come back here. The rest of this post will be more relevant if you have the full context.) I do agree with Rob Bell about one thing. (Quick. Somebody wash my mouth out with soap. Please.) He's right when he points out that the way the secular media usually employ the term evangelical—as a synonym for religious right-wing politicos—is a misnomer. Bell says, "For many, the word has nothing to do with a spiritual context." Well, yeah, OK. I suppose that's part of the problem. More precisely, the term evangelical has been systematically evacuated of any reference to its historic doctrinal roots. People today therefore feel free to assign it any meaning they fancy—religious or non-religious. Practically everyone in the world of popular religion now claims to be "evangelical" in one sense or another. That includes not only old-line Moral Majority types who think the Republican Party agenda is gospel truth; hip middle-class Willow Creekers who couldn't care less about either doctrine or politics but just want to be entertained; crypto-Socinians like Bell and McLaren; crass socialists like Jim Wallis and Sojourners; heavily politicized left-wing wingnuts who think Tony Jones, Doug Pagitt, and Al Franken are all good medicine—or whatever. In fact, listen to Bell's own cockamamie claim about what the term properly describes:
"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."
So is that what Bell considers "a spiritual context," or did he already forget what he had just been saying about how the term became politicized and corrupted in the first place? Hmmm.

An interviewer at The Boston Globe evidently wondered the same thing. He tells Bell, "I'm struck by the fact that I don't hear a lot of explicitly religious language, or mentions of Jesus, from you."Bell's answers to that question and others in a similar vein are instructive. Among other things, he admits, "I have as much in common with the performance artist, the standup comedian, the screenwriter, as I do with the theologian. I'm in an odd world where I make things and share them with people."

One thing is clear: Bell himself is no true evangelical in any historic sense of the term. The Boston Globe's headline ("Bell aims to restore true meaning of 'evangelical'") is exactly backward. Bell has no agenda to "restore the true meaning" of the term evangelical, much less encourage a revival of true evangelical belief. In fact, Bell has made a career of attacking historic evangelical convictions—laying siege to the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, the wrath of God against sin, the authority and
perspicuity of Scripture, the necessity of the virgin birth, the coherence of
the biblical testimony about the Resurrection, the exclusivity of Christ, and
whatever other historic Christian doctrines Bell finds politically
incorrect.

In fact, if you have the stomach to read the complete version of The Boston Globe interview, don't miss Bell's arrogant skepticism about the sovereignty and omniscience of God: "For a lot of people, dominant questions center around, 'Why is this happening? Why me? Why now?' Unfortunately, the religious voice often enters into the discussion at an inappropriate time—'God just planned this.' Really? Your God planned this, not mine."

If any popular figure "in the evangelical movement" (or on its copious fringe) deserves the label "heretic," it is Rob Bell. The guardians of evangelical politeness don't like that kind of candor, but when a secular newspaper like The Boston Globe is publishing pieces implying that the best, most promising alternative to right-wing civil religion is a mish-mash of Open Theism and performance art—and that whatever "evangelicalism" is, it must be one or the other of those two abominations, it's time for people with historic evangelical convictions to speak up clearly and make the biblical message heard again.

Other responses to the interview:

Jared Wilson from "The Gospel-driven church" blog : "A Rant: Rob Bell and an Evangel-less Evangelicalism" Click HERE

Todd Pruitt of 1517: "Rob Bell finds himself in the weeds again" Click HERE