Hm, I always thought it had something to do with, err... evangelism? That is to say, change in people's hearts, rather than the ambiguous notion of change "in the world."

But if someone as obviously brilliant and clever as Rob Bell says it actually means caring for the environment (contrary to all historical understanding of the term), who am I to argue?

I think evangelical is just a word. Perhaps it has lost it's meaning? There's no biblical need to identify yourself as "evangelical." However I do think we should try to be biblical in our actions and beliefs.

Rob, I don't think you take the bible very seriously. At least, the assertions you make and interpretations you give don't seem to be honestly based on a full reading of scripture. Why is creation-care such a HUGE part of your gospel, when the bible hardly ever mentions it?

To answer the questions in the post:

Has the word evangelical been corrupted?
Tainted, perhaps. It unfortunately carries certain political connotations these days.

Is it still useful?
Yes, since at root, it's pretty descriptive. "Evangelical" describes someone committed to evangelism... spreading the good news of Christ's sacrifice as the answer to man's sin.

Do you still embrace the category or have you abandoned it for another label?
I generally go with "Reformed Baptist," but I certainly fall within the historical understanding of evangelical. If I identify myself as such in conversation, I would likely provide the explanation from the previous questions.

Bell has done a lot and he has always been a very innovative and creative person. I do take issue with his recasting of the world "evangelical" when it clearly points to the Gospel, about salvation, which yes the restoration of mankind to God and the rest of creation, but it is about redemption from our brokenness. His definition sounds more like double-speak and circumvents the nitty gritty of the Gospel.

I do wonder if this is just a sign of our own generation becoming increasingly ashamed of being followers of Jesus. We want to be hip and cool, and we critique those who are about the message but not the people, but isn't there a factor of shame to our finger-pointing and peddling around issues?

actually "creation care" is part of the original mandates given to humans by God and goes directly to a basic part of human being.

when God places the humans in the garden God tells them to care for it (shamar) it's the same word used later in the psalm (in repetition) that speaks of God's own care and tending of us.

all that being said, i think Bell's definition is off the mark.
if, in Adam, we see the first human and that human's experience is the normative marker for our understanding of humanity vis-a-vis sin, then it follows that the blessings and mandates also matter for our humanity now.

I agree that to cut oneself off from its historical use is suspect, but I do think he's keeping in line with the historical definition of evangelism, albeit refocusing a bit. Defining evangelism as exclusively, or even primarily, having to do with changed hearts is a somewhat recent phenomenon—more or less as a poor reaction to the Enlightenment. Classically, evangelism has simply been bringing the good news to the world. This is not merely reasserting an escapist hope to relocate to heaven, abandoning the earth to flames. The good news is simply an announcement that Jesus has been raised from the dead, establishing him as King of kings. This has implications that involve caring for the physical, as well as the spiritual, aspects of God's creation, from creation care and attention to poverty to changed hearts and minds.

So I think what he is talking about IS evangelism, just not the definition that we're used to.

As for not taking the Bible seriously, Jesse, you probably realize that this is a subjective assertion. We've gotten so used to reading the Bible without its historical and cultural context, that we've largely ignored its impact on its original hearers (because we've gotten so used to thinking of ourselves as the original hearers). Anyway, there are a couple points with which I disagree with him, but I'm pleased with the way he's opened his audience up to the world of the first hearers.

What Rob Bell described could be true of people who have no religious belief or faith at all! Evangelical speaks of faith in Jesus as the Messiah of God and the way of salvation.

While I do not disagree with Rob Bell's statements, he does not go far enough in his description of "evangelical."

When people ask me if I still consider myself an evangelical, it's hard for me not to crinkle my nose a bit. "Evangelical is a voting block," I usually say.

I think Rob Bell places the term in its appropriate context. To many Christians these days equate conservative politics and Church polity with 'evangelical'. We are mandated to bring Christ into the world. Then Bible provides many means and ways through which people have responded to this call.
For far too many Christians there has been a rather unhealthy fixation on Christ on the Cross.As if that is all there is to Christ. This isn't JUST about eternal life. Very vocal evangelicals(I like pharisees better) have for too long USED Christ as the boogyman who will get you if you don't come clean and make right. The gift has become a threat.
I think Rob is getting us back to the simple yet radical message of Jesus. Love God, love each each other, care for creation do this now and often.

The word has obviously been corrupted, since several comments here connect "evangelical" with "a commitment to evangelism," when evangelism is only one mark of evangelicalism. Millions of Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Pentecostal, and mainline Protestant Christians around the world are committed to evangelism, but that does not make them "evangelical."

I've been noticing a trend, at least in my assorted corners of Canada, wherein "evangelical" has come to be used as a substitute for "non-denominational". It sounds kind of wish-washy to say that you're non-denominational. While it suggests greater inclusiveness, it lacks personal identity, except for that of non-conformism, an unreliable and overly broad identity at best. On the other hand, to say that you're evangelical denotes a tangible identity in something while still suggesting that you don't adhere to a specific formal religious tradition or practice - though most of the self-defined evangelical churches I've been to have strict specifications regarding the practice of communion, musical worship, and such. In those specifications, identity grows.

As for what "evangelical" means to me? As an adjective, it's in the dictionary. As an identity or a title, it's up there with "empowerment", "political correctness", and "carbon offset" - in other words, I haven't a clue what it means, and if I ask ten people, I'll get ten different answers.

These days, I usually just tell people I'm non-denominational. ;)

I am an unashamed Evangelical. The term has been corrupted by the media, trivialized by the church, and I believe wrongly limited by newgen Christians like Bell, but it's time for the church to reclaim it, not to rename it. It's about much more than just "evangelism;" it is about the "euangelion," the gospel, the "good news of the Word" (Acts 8:4) in all its fulness. Historically, and in this new generation, I define an Evangelical as one whose life and faith is shaped and guided by three commitments:

1. To the good news of the Word of Salvation--That eternal life comes from being born again by faith in Jesus Christ (Jn. 3:16f; Acts 8:4).
2. The good news of the Word of Truth--That God has revealed himself and his truth in his written Word and in his Son (Eph. 1:13; Heb. 1:1-3; Jn. 1:1-5, 14-18).
3. To the good news of the Word of Life--That the only real life in this world is the life offered by God through Jesus, that we offer to others (Jn 3:16; 1 Jn 1:1-5; Phil. 2:16).

I could do more than three, but I like a good trinitarian formula. Being an Evangelical is about a personal relationship with Christ, a personal belief in the truth of the Bible, and a personal commitment to offering real life to the world. We don't need a new identity; we need a renewed one.

The "full interview" isn't much to speak of, and I'm not sure we're really getting Rob Bell verbatim. Be that as it may, I think Bell is right about what "Evangelical" has come to mean in American culture, but completely misses what the term ever meant theologically.

I tend to agree with scholar/author Mark Noll's description of Evangelicalism (I think I'm remembering this right) as groups that emphasize 1) the need for personal salvation and rebirth, 2) a view of of scripture as the inspired (and even inerrant) Word of God, 3) the primary task of the church is to bring people to faith through the sharing of the gospel message and 4) the death and resurrection of Jesus are paramount to understanding his mission and work on earth. That's Evangelical theology.

Then there's Evangelical culture, which is a little squishier to define. But it might include 1) eschewing high-church practices like formal liturgy, ornate decorations and garments, and elaborate ceremony, 2) an emphasis on the sermon as the central focus of the gathering, 3) a generally conservative political philosophy, or 4) an emphasis on personal experience in worship. Just to name a few.

I was definitely raised in an Evangelical church, both in the theological and cultural sense. In the broader American vernacular, I think the term Evangelical means a conservative political movement made up of people who read the bible very literally. That's a lot less than it could mean, or used to mean.

But is it worth trying to save the term? I think we have bigger fish to fry than trying to protect the word "Evangelical." Sort of like what Donald Miller says, I have no interest in "defending" Christianity, but do have interest in "defending" Jesus. And I care even less about defending "Evangelicalism."

I don't embrace the term "Evangelical" now, mostly because I subscribe to very few of those theological or cultural emphases. It's not that I disagree with those theologies, just that I find great riches and meaning in many other aspects of Christian theology. And really, I think many Evangelical denominations are doing this, too. Many old Evangelicals do see the value of environmental conservation, and many are finding renewed significance in Jesus' incarnation and in serving the poor as an end in itself.

I don't see any value in trying to reclaim "Evangelical" as a term, since the meaning it would convey, if reclaimed, is increasingly irrelevant to where practicing American Christians are today. I think we'd all do better to let the term die, the quicker the better.

way too narrow, importing of his own postmodern sensibilities, and devoid of any historical context. That's my humble insertion.

And if I might add after re-reading his definition, it sounds like he knows nothing of what it means.

well we wouldn't want to let postmodern sensibilities displace relatively recent "modern" sensibilities, now would we?

can we please, please, please get away from using "post-modern" as the junkdrawer word that basically means "i don't like it" or "i disagree"?

ugh.

Not sure if this will change anything since people who like Rob Bell will usually defend him no matter what he says, while others will criticize him no matter what he says, but The Boston Globe left out of print most of what Rob said in the interview, which included saying the name of Jesus (for those whose entire theological systems are built upon saying the-one-through-whom-the-world-was-made's English name as much as possible, this should unbunch your religious panties a bit).

Carry on.

Apparently Rob has been converted to the belief that no one should try to convert others to their beliefs and now he's trying to convert everyone to believe that too.

@ Andy: evangelical as Bell defines it is more about evangelism than you may realise. My 'heart' happens to be in the world, not outside it... The evangel of both words is the 'good news'. In the NT the good news is the good news of the kingdom of God: recovery of sight for the blind, freedom from oppression and... forgiveness of sins. All of those take place in this world.

@nathan
No. Postmodern sensibilities in that Bell has disregarded over 300 years of evangelicalism tracing all the way back to German pietism in lieu of a relatively recent postmodern reading. The point is he's missing a much larger tradition.

Evangelical Christianity is a political movement, a subset of the American Republican party.

In theory, evangelism has to do with spreading the Good News, but in practice it's about spreading a particular form of political theory.

@Wayne

no. still not necessarily "postmodern".

could it be that mr. bell, like many others raised in evangelicalism, is simply not aware of the history of which you speak?

most evangelicals are woefully unschooled in the history of the church, much less their own tradition.

your use of "postmodern" assumes too much.

for the record, i agree his definition is off the mark, but it's not because of the postmodern boogeyman.

from what i hear he's off being busy with his boogeyman brothers of "hollywood" and "government"....

oh, yeah...i forgot...

there's also their boogeyman cousin--"Obama".

last I checked we were defining "evangelical" not "postmodern" which is an entirely different debate and a hotly contested one at that.

Why that's such an issue in this thread I'm not sure.

fascinating.

you've asserted that bell's incorrect definition of evangelical is rooted in postmodern sensibilities and that is evidenced by his disregard for history.

but there is no necessary connection between a disregard for history and postmodernity.

if such was the case, then low-church evangelicals could be characterized as some of the first postmodernists...

you brought it up, dude.

On the contrary history is one of the first things postmodernism deconstructs. So there is a connection. Still don't know what your point is tho.

deconstruction is not disregard.

you drew an explicit connection between bell's disregard/ignorance of history and "postmodern sensibilities".

you and i agree his definition of evangelical is off the mark.

my point to you is precisely that "postmodern sensibilities" is not the point.

by injecting "postmodernism" as the boogeyman reason behind bell's incorrect definition just confuses the issue.

fair enough; then I'll never use the word "postmodern" again because all I'm doing is using a straw man argument. Why is it so hard to just name it for what it is? Arguably, the unwillingness to name postmodernism as postmodernism is, ironically, a postmodern sensibility in and of itself.

I don't see how one could claim Bell to be anything but postmodern; a lack of propositional belief, a borderline universalism, a disregard (or perhaps dis-understanding) of some of the older creeds...

He's a great pastor, churchman, and leader - give credit where it's due. But does he know his stuff? He's fuzzy.

Has anyone ever noticed that Rob Bell's comments to the press are not as complete as what we find when we read his books or listen to his other teachings? Could he possibly be baiting us? Baiting us to examine what he means by "change in the world"?
Possibly the greatest "change" the world has ever known. The change of a sinner becoming a "New Creation"!

I think where @Nate was trying to go could be helpful to the conversation. Bebbington's quadrilateral (which was misquoted earlier) is a pretty standard definition to start with for "evangelicals." Here's its four parts (straight from Wikipedia):

Biblicism: a particular regard for the Bible (e.g. all spiritual truth is to be found in its pages)
Crucicentrism: a focus on the atoning work of Christ on the cross
Conversionism: the belief that human beings need to be converted
Activism: the belief that the gospel needs to be expressed in effort

Bebbington came at it from the perspective of a historian, which is helpful to consider given that the word doesn't just appear out of nowhere. One thing to note (contrary to many other posters) is that it isn't exclusively about "evangelism," (ie. evangelical does not equal "one who practices evangelism.") There is a bit more to it than that. So, no, Rob Bell is not screwing up the term in that way, although his definition is a work in progress too.

Most of the people chafing at his definition of "Evangelical" are, in fact, "Evangelical Christians" who vote, for the most part, Republican without even looking at the candidate.

Face it, the truth hurts and you (the evangelical) are nothing more now than a statistic used every two to four years for voting data. I'm in the deep south and Rob Bell's definition is spot on accurate. There are people who will vote for the first person to claim God told them to run for office regardless of their policies and/or record.

Those who are mad are those who just got a mirror in their face.

As far as Rob Bell's grasp on Scripture? Clearly you've never listened to his sermons, I would recommend that you do so before you mouth off like that.

I'm also in the deep South and you're spot on. For example, an evangelical can be identified by their total opposition to public health care.

I applaud Bell's attempt to define the term in another direction, one much more consistent with the teachings of Jesus IMHO.

The term "Evangelical" is clearly associated with a "Religious Right" voting block in the minds of most people outside the church today.

When I share Christ I want to help people become Christ-followers - not evangelicals. The term is nothing but a negative today for the vast majority of people outside the church.

what's remarkable is how many are jumping on the bandwagon to disavow "evangelicalism" from a strictly American standpoint. I get it, you want to be relevant in your 'hood where "evangelical" is basically a cuss word. But hang on. In the rest of the world and for the past several centuries it's meant something more than just Republican politics - Toddh above gives Bebbington's consummate definition. Read it before you're so quick to make the distinction between Christ-followers and evangelicals. You might hate the name, but like it or not - we're family - and a global one at that.

@Wayne

well then your family has big problems that need to get fixed before it keeps going around poking people in the eye.

it may be healthy elsewhere, but it ain't here in the good 'ol USofA.

it's fascinating to me how evangelicals get a chip on their shoulder, but won't fix or address the very things that shoot their credibility.

Rob Bell: 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.

Basil: But Rob even though the idea of striving for a better world is 'good news' it is not the 'Gospel' itself. I don't the ism in E word any more than you do. But you are stating to sound like Humpty Dumpty from Alice in Wonderland.

"But hang on. In the rest of the world and for the past several centuries it's meant something more than just Republican politics"

Wayne,
I see your point, however, here in the microcosm of this world called the United States the term "Evangelist" has been redefined to mean a Republican Right Wing Conservative Christian.
This new creature has elevated Patriotism to the same level as service to G-d, has deemed any disagreement with their world view as Heresy, and has hardened their hearts so that compassion for their fellow human being is considered "Liberal."

There are many flaws in the church, however the largest of them all is the unchristlike behaviour of the self-proclaimed Evangelists who have subverted the command "love thy neighbor as theyself" to "Conform or be cast out."
And this, Wayne, is the new gospel message the Evangelists are telling the rest of the Church, and to the unchurched: Conform to their way of thinking and live a quiet life, or they'll make life very, very difficult for you.
Evangelists in the United States are interested in everything worldly that has nothing to do with G-d.
I'm sure there are a few "evangelistic" people out there who remain untainted by the politics of the Evangelical Church, but they are the minority in the overall generality.

"we're family - and a global one at that."

Yes, every family has that one "very special" member they hope never shows up for the holidays...it would seem the U.S. Church is that person.

And once again, it's time for the evangelicals to be the punching bag. If all of you are going to expend that much energy bashing the public perception of evangelicals, then you should spend at least as much time talking about what they do right (if you even think they do anything right).

The practice of "our movement is right, and everything about yours is old, antiquated, and wrong" does nothing to advance the cause of Christ in the world today, and probably has more to do with the "old school" church's perception of the "post-modern" or "emergent" church than any differences (perceived or actual) between the two movements. It makes you look elitist, even worse because you're doing it to your brothers and sisters.

and once again we see the standard refuge...the myth of the "embattled, downtrodden evangelical".

it's the inability of a community to simply say...

"You're right. We've really messed things up." that perpetuates the accurate assessment that there is an allergy to honesty in the evangelical world.

Instead of crying victim, people should lean in to the criticism and seek to understand how they've hurt and damaged people.

instead of freaking out at people's ire and angst, humility requires an ownership of the failures that have generated that ire and angst.

i'm so tired of being part of community of people that roll their eyes at the embarrassing fringe/gatekeepers/etc. etc., but won't do anything to distance themselves or to publicly offer a vigorous alternative.

it's time to hang up the evangelical victim mentality, own our crap, and own how that crap does stink worse than other people because it's all done in the name of Jesus.

"it's time to hang up the evangelical victim mentality, own our crap, and own how that crap does stink worse than other people because it's all done in the name of Jesus."

Nathan,
Often times when I read sentiments like James I get this video mental image of the movie, "Mars Attacks!"
I see little green men called Evangelicals wearing little plastic dome helmets running around zapping everyone into dust that they find abhorrent, screaming, "We're victims, boo-hoo, someone help us, oh noes, they're all ganging up on us! ACK! A LIBERAL!"
{{{{ZAAAAPPPP!}}}}}
I know, bizarre, and yet the image arises unsummon everytime I read or hear an Evangelical rant about the evils that "the liberals, the reprobates, the unrepentant sinners that infest this great nation of ours have side-tracked our grand plan of bringing about a holy nation under our god!"

And yes...I purposefully used the small "g" because there are times when I really question what "god" some of the Evangelicals call upon in their...passion for divine intervention.

@Nathan and sheerahkahn

Frankly, my issue is hardly with the so-called "liberal" Christians. I know that God uses Christian churches of all types (Gasp, even evangelical churches! Gasp, even emergent churches!), and I don't feel compelled to defend my sensibilities as a believer.

What I don't like is this attitude that permeates all sectors of the church, where we feel compelled to tell everyone who doesn't do church our way, "The way you do church is outdated/harmful to people/emergent/fuddy duddy/liberal/fundamentalist and adds nothing of value to the Church." Both sides are just as snarky and spiteful, this just happened to be the topic that got me going on it.

Does the Church do things wrong? You bet. All of us, you and me included. We make amends the best we can, and then keep trying to do what God has called us to do--preach the gospel and make disciples. The great thing is that God uses your methods and my methods and a lot of other methods to get that done.

I only wish we all were as passionate about that as we were at navel-gazing, self-flagellation, and friendly fire.

@james

i hear what you are saying.

and you are right.

i've just seen a lot of people trying to simply be faithul in their context, talk about what that looks like, and because it's "different" they get told they are "attacking" people, or denigrating the "institution", etc. etc.

so the good news, the basis of being an evangelical is what again?

at this point i'm confused.

perhaps the good news is that all types of churches get something right and not one of us has the full, complete picture.

perhaps the good news is that Jesus still works through it all and covers all of our mess.

perhaps the good news is that at the end of the day we can all link arms and still call each other brothers and sisters. (those who are willing, at least.)

because words do matter. but if you are not living the good news, sharing the good news, being the good news, i cannot consider you an evangelical (hat-tip to jim wallis).

just a couple of thoughts.

and for the record, i love the discussion. i love the exchange of comments on here.

but i'm just sayin'.