Tell emâ€™ Jared Wilson. I am getting increasingly disgusted with the â€œreligionlessâ€ , generic definitions of theological categories (and evangel IS a theological category) that seek to align with the mainstream rather than that which more of ten than not CHALLENGES that mainstream.
Bell’s printed definition is this: 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. Thatâ€™s a beautiful sort of thing.
I’d like to buy the world a Coke.
This definition is worthless for evangelical meaning. It could easily be the mission statement of Greenpeace, the United Way, your local vegans’ co-op, or even the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
#333333">Itâ€™s not that I donâ€™t like Greenpeace or the United Way. I do. They do good things. The church should be about doing good, of course. But isnâ€™t it our reasoning , our motif that should sound a bit different? Thanks, Jared. I found this via a tweet from iMonk. More wisdom from this post:
Keller and Carson remind us to not speak of the gospel as if it is advice. That’s good advice. And there is no Jesus in Bell’s evangelical outline. No work of Jesus. Just us bein’ awesome.
Now thereâ€™s some good comments under that post, with some clarification that sets Bell further from this critique, and then some that say â€œyeah, but stillâ€¦.â€