Mr. Bell does make a very valid point about the misuse of the term “evangelical” by our society / culture at large but by many “so called evangelicals themselves. He does have a point there and must be commended for that, however; it should be remembered that many who are critical of Mr. Bell would make the same argument. That someone wants to misuse the word or misidentify what it means does not mean the word should be abandoned but rather that evangelicals should actively work to “reclaim” the word.

Now to his definition – BLUF (Bottom line up front) is that he never once mentions Romans 1:16 or 1 Cor 15:1-4, both of which define the gospel, the good news, the evangel.

In his twitter posts he mentions the “historic” term several times but never bothers to define it – he just complains that some of what he said was not in the article. Surely this is not Mr. Bell's “first rodeo”, if he is unaware of the media's practice of leaving much of an interview on the “cutting room floor”, then we may well have a new definition for another biblical word – “fool”.

Mr. Bell attempted to define the gospel without the evangel, the closest he came to mentioning the death and resurrection of Jesus was when he defined a church as “a community gathered around resurrection” but of course he didn't mention Jesus or the redemptive purpose of his death and resurrection.

Finally he even even questions the nature of God with a squishy, neo-Open Thiesm.

So are you uncomfortable with the word “heretic”? Okay I can work with that but what word do you use to identify a person who:
1. Redefines the gospel without any reference to the gospel
2. Questions and redefines the explicitly revealed nature of God
3. Explicitly denies the gospel when he refuses to include the redemptive sacrifice of Christ for the sins of mankind in his definition of the gospel.

If not “heretic” then what, this seems to be more than simply “error”, so what?

If one of my spiritual mentors was taking a hit I wouldn't like it either, even if and maybe especially if they were moving down a path leading to the denial of the truth.

Heresy is defined as departing from or defaming an orthodox position. Well it strikes me that Mr. Bell does both, it is sad, he is an effective and captivating speaker. He strikes me as having a brilliant mind, he can be enormously effective, but unfortunately he has departed from truths that he once held.

I pray that he will recognize his errors, repent and return to the Gospel as defined in the pages of scripture.
V/R
Terry T

I don't really understand the definition Bell gave of evangelical. The key to this term is the evangel which is the gospel of Christ. I did not see this given. Was this part allegedly edited out?