Here is what the Boston Globe quoted: “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.” Here are Rob’s tweeted responses: Ever done an interview and then read it and realized they left out most of what you said? Maddening. A bit of history: the word evangelical comes from the Roman Empire propaganda machine- it was an announcement proclaiming Caesar is Lord… The first Christians took the phrase and tweaked it, saying “Jesus is Lord.” That, of course, could get you killed. No one challenges Caesar To confess Jesus is Lord was to insist that peace does not come to earth through coercive violence but through sacrificial love… That is still the question, is it not? Whose way? Jesus or Caesar? Power and might and domination – or bloody, thirsty, hanging on a cross?

The Boston Globe reduces Rob Bell’s definition of “Evangelical” … see his response.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5pomuG Ed Stetzer and Alan Hirsch discuss the emerging multi-site mo

Ed Stetzer and Alan Hirsch discuss the emerging multi-site model with the folks at Out of UR.  Stetzer asks us to ponder whether multi-site churches are being used to give great communicators a larger audience, or to raise up more communicators?  He also has a hunch that multi-site will not be a big phenomenon in post-Christian settings. It’s much more popular among Christians willing to come to church and watch a pastor on a screen.  Hirsch adds that any model of church that tends toward making the people of God more passive is a problem.