Book Review: Velvet Elvis (Part II)
Serious Concerns
Now that I have explained my personal quibbles with his style, I would like to speak to his substance. On the back cover of the book, Rob invites everyone to test his book. That is what I'm doing today. I make no apologies about the following statement: Rob Bell's Velvet Elvis is dangerous, poisonous, and ungodly.* Is there some truth? Yes. Would I ever recommend it to anyone? Never. It is full of doublespeak, man-centered theology, and downright false-teaching.
How's that for shock value?
6 Reasons You Should Not Spend Money on Velvet Elvis**
1. Rob Bell does not take doctrine seriously.
Paul commanded Timothy to keep a close watch on himself and "on the teaching" (i.e. on the doctrine). Salvation hangs in the balance for his hearers (1 Tim 4:16). At the beginning of the book, Bell compares Christianity to a trampoline. The springs that hold the mat up are the various doctrines of the Christian faith. The doctrines, like springs, have to be flexible, and certainly can't "keep people out" (Velvet Elvis, 28). That's the problem with having inflexible doctrines (what Bell calls “bricks”). Unfortunately, Bell is not talking about being legalistic with respect to unessential doctrines: things like whether you can eat meat or do work on Saturdays or celebrate holidays or other that we ought not divide over (Romans 14). The doctrines he gives as examples of springs are the Trinity (Velvet Elvis, 22) and the virgin birth (26). He is referring to "core doctrines" (26), "central to historic, orthodox Christian faith" (22). I would not be wanting to make light of core doctrines when Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 says things like "If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile" (v. 17) and "those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished" (v. 18) and "we are of all people most to be pitied" (v. 19). Had Rob Bell written 1 Corinthians 15 it may have turned out a little bit more like this: "I believe that Christ was resurrected, but even if Christ was not raised we can still love God, live the way of Jesus, and be good Christians. The whole thing certainly can't fall apart with this one spring..." (Velvet Elvis, 26-7). Weak sauce, Mr. Bell. Weak sauce.
"You don't have to know anything about the springs to pursue living 'the way.'" -Velvet Elvis, 34
Translation: You don’t need doctrine to be a growing Christian. This is troublesome.
2. Rob Bell claims that no one can ever tell you what the Bible is really saying.
Bell reports that a person once said to him: "As long as you teach the Bible I have no problem with you." Bell tells us what the person really meant: "As long as you teach my version of the Bible, I'll have no problem with you" (44). Bell is not happy about that. He insists that anyone who teaches the Bible is simply teaching his version of the Bible. Of course, on the very next page Bell begins to explain to us what "Jesus believed about the Scriptures" (45). I penciled in a note there, which says: "You mean your version of what Jesus believed about them?" Does everyone realize that once one claims no one can teach you what the Bible says for itself, every Pastor should be out of a job? Including our friend Rob Bell? Fortunately, we can know what the Bible says and means. The Bible expects you to be able to interpret it correctly. Yes, even the confusing verses! For example, Peter said that:
"[Paul's] letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction." -2 Pet 3:16
According to Peter, one should at least be able to manage to not distort the true meaning of hard-to-understand verses. Any distortion that arises is not God's fault, but the fault of the one who distorted it! Wow. Furthermore, Paul commanded Timothy:
"Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth" (2 Tim 2:15).
Paul says to strive for perfection in the area of interpreting the Bible (“rightly handling the Word of Truth”). And John says:
"The elder, To the chosen lady and her children, whom I love in the truth—and not I only, but also all who know the truth - because of the truth, which lives in us and will be with us forever" (2 John 1-2).
John assumes that it is possible to know the truth! And the Word of God is truth (John 17:17)! Will you know it in fullness? No. That would be omniscience. But you can know it accurately and sufficiently. With his quip about whose version of the Bible we're teaching, I'm lead to think that Rob Bell believes no one will ever be able to know for sure that they are interpreting the Bible correctly. Of course, he proceeds to interpret the Bible throughout the rest of the book, so he can't really believe what he is saying. Doublespeak: Misleading. Confusing. Frustrating.
3. Rob Bell uses unnecessarily confusing, unbiblical language.
I cringe when people use phrases like "Jesus called people to live in tune with reality" and "God is the ultimate reality" (21). If Bell were more solid elsewhere and immediately explained what he meant after saying these things, I might not have as much of a problem with it. As the writing stands, however, it means nothing to me. My fear is that people will simply insert meaning into the text that even Rob didn't intend because it is such vague language. Another phrase he uses is "true for us" (58). I think I figured out what he means when he says this, but I don't appreciate his inadvertent softening of the word "true." When you start using phrases like "true for us" you create the idea in people’s heads that truth can be a little bit relative. Then when we proclaim Christ to be "the Truth" (John 14:6), people respond with "well, he's not my truth; he's your truth." All of this makes it utterly difficult to evangelize the lost. But speaking of evangelism…
4. Rob Bell believes that the church should "surrender its desire to convert people" (167).
According to Bell, your purpose as the body of Christ is not to "make disciples" (Matthew 28:19), it is not to "be all things to all men that [we] might save some" (1 Cor 9:22), it is not to "seek and save the lost" (Luke 19:10), it is not to plead with the lost as Peter did on Pentecost (Acts 2:40). Rob Bell would have you think that "silent witnessing" is the way to go. Make the gospel so attractive by your actions that people can't help but join. The Biblical model is both. Let your actions back up your words. That way, when people see your life, the gospel that you are preaching to them will be vindicated. People will interpret your life for what it is, an act of God. The only exception I see to this is when wives have unbelieving husbands (1 Pet 3).
Rob Bell specifically tells people NOT to enter into relationships with the intention of eventually converting someone. You see… that would be having "an agenda. And when there is an agenda, it isn't really love, is it?" (167). Wanting someone to know the true and living God is the best agenda there is! Why did Paul make himself all things to all men? To "save some" (1 Cor 9:22). Why did God send Jesus to the earth that He "loved"? So that "whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life" (John 3:16). What did the Son of Man come for? To "seek and save the lost" (Luke 19:10). What was Paul's heart's desire? To see his brethren "saved" (Romans 10:1). The desire to convert people from darkness to light is the most loving desire you could possibly have for a fellow human being. If you can think of a more loving one, let me know. Perhaps Bell is simply reacting to those who treat unbelievers with disdain and mockery rather than love simply because they aren't Christians. I would join him in saying that such an attitude is ungodly. Nevertheless, if this is so he has swung too far in the opposite direction, and it is extremely concerning to me.
5. Rob Bell promotes man-centered theology.
Bell believes that "God has an incredibly high view of people" (134). I would say that the only being God has “an incredibly high view of" is Himself! And He ought to. He's God after all! At one point, Jesus "refused to entrust Himself to [some people]...for He knew what was in a man" (John 2:23-5). Jesus knew that man left to his own devices cannot be trusted. Let's go over what sort of potential we have on our own...
"deceitful above all things" - Jer 17:9
"objects of wrath" - Eph 2:3
"out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander" - Matt 15:19
Doesn't that make you feel good about yourself? This is why we need God's grace! The gospel is that we no longer have to live under the power and dominion of these things! We can be forgiven of the guilt laid on us by them, and that freedom comes through the historical, literal, physical death, burial, and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ who lived and walked and talked and ate 2000 years ago (did I make myself clear?). Trust in the payment of Jesus Christ for your sins. Repent (turn away from) your sins. Commit yourself fully to Christ. All your eggs in one basket. This is the message that saves! We have His promise (Rom 10:9-10).
Some more troubling quotes:
"I have been told that I need to believe in Jesus. Which is a good thing. But what I am learning is that Jesus believes in me.
I have been told that I need to have faith in God. Which is a good thing. But what I am learning is that God has faith in me" (134).
This is completely man-centered theology. Jesus does not believe in you; He believes in His own ability to accomplish what He desires through you. And it doesn't have to be you, either! You aren't the only one who can accomplish what God desires. If He felt like it, He could rise up vessels from the rocks to carry out His will (Matt 3:9). That is why I can be evermore eternally grateful that God chose me! Wow. God didn't need me, yet he chose to have grace on me. That... is amazing.
6. Rob Bell treats temporal issues as more important than eternal ones.
For example, he says "the gospel is good news, especially for those who don't believe it" (emphasis mine, 166). On the contrary, the Bible states that Jesus is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe" (1 Tim 4:10). So Rob Bell thinks the main benefits come to those who don’t believe, while the Bible says that the main benefits are for those who do believe. Why does the Bible take this position? Because while the gospel has practical benefits for all people, as Bell rightly points out, the MAIN benefit is for those who are the recipients of everlasting life, those who are given the privilege of knowing God forever. The primary benefit is NOT having a nicer neighbor, the example he uses on page 166. That is simply a perk. Treating the nice neighbor as more significant than eternal salvation is like treating your dental plan in your new job as more significant than the six figure salary. It just doesn't make sense. In this case, it is the difference between knowing the living God for eternity and spending 20-30 years next to a nicer neighbor. The second is good and a wonderful gift of God that we can rejoice in, but it's not the main benefit, and I can't understand why Bell focuses so much on things like this. He belittles personal forgiveness, reconciliation with God, but the Biblical characters rejoiced over this:
"Yet I will rejoice in the LORD; I will take joy in the God of my salvation" – Hab. 3:18
Similarly, Bell reveals his tragically flawed perspective with ridiculous statements like "the church has nothing to say to the world until it throws better parties" (170, emphasis mine). What about being the pillar and buttress of the truth (1 Tim 3:15)? What about being the medium through which salvation is preached to the world? Can he possibly be serious? I'm afraid so. Bell seems to think that if the world isn't attracted to the church, the church is doing something wrong. He wants the world to think highly of the church. He forgets that it was Paul who said, "We are to God the fragrance of Christ among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing. To the one we are the aroma of death leading to death, and to the other the aroma of life leading to life" (2 Cor 2:15-16). We are going to smell like death to those who are perishing. As much as I wish the world would be as excited about serving and submitting to Christ as I am, the fact is that the gospel is a stumbling block. The world hates the message, and sometimes even the messenger. That's why Jesus got crucified. That's why John got exiled. That's why Paul was whipped 5 times, stoned, and finally beheaded. Let’s just say that this sort of angry persecution doesn't result from preaching a warm, fuzzy, come-jump-with-me-on-my-sweet-trampoline message.
Closing Remarks
I don't know how much effect this review will have on the relationships I share with certain dearly loved friends who think highly of Rob Bell, but I cannot sit back and act like it is simply preference that keeps me away from this man. I thought perhaps upon reading the book I would gain a more unbiased and favorable view of Rob Bell, able to decide for myself where He stands rather than going off the "propaganda" of conservative Talk Radio, among other inputs. I was wrong. The more I read, the more deeply I became concerned for anyone who so much as has a favorable view of the book. I did not come away from this book edified. Do not spend money on it. There is no reason to go through this book for the sake of "finding the good in it." If that's how low we're setting our standards, we need to rethink our standards. It's like looking for pennies between the cushions of your couch when you should be going to work and earning steady pay; why waste your time squeezing water out of rocks when you can soak in God’s truth from a much more trustworthy source? Go fill yourself on something spiritually reliable. Like... the Bible.
**Lest some think that I was not pleased by anything Rob Bell had to say, I did appreciate the first three paragraphs on page 169. Also, I thought his story about his dinner being paid for him was a great picture of the grace of God.
17 comments:
Evan, this is an awesome post. I am glad you presented the truth through the quoting of Scriptures and I am glad that you quoted things from the book. This review gave me no desire to read the book and just read the Bible instead. Thanks for spreading God's Word with me today. Praise God that we have the opportunity to spend all day telling people about Jesus Christ and the importance of His death and resurrection. I am so thankful for our friendship and I admire your passion for the Lord.
- Julie
Hey Evan,
Nice job on your review. After I first read "Velvet Elvis", I didn't have a strong opinion about it. But in hindsight, I was just giving Rob Bell the benefit of the doubt. He writes in very vague terms, like you said. This book can be misleading for new or non-Christians, and it isn't very edifying for mature Christians. This is a very fair analysis.
Evan, Your review seeks to prove Rob's theory of Brickianity to the letter. These views of yours are patronisising and very narrow. Rob Bell is to be congratulated for his excellent attempt to reveal something of Jesus in the context of his early believers. It is Right wing Evangelists (sad to say many of them American) who should be condemned as dangerous writers and not the more thought out writings of writers like Rob who are simply trying to make some sense of God and life.
Rev Ian
Baptist Pastor - UK.
Hey Evan,
i can see your points, and agree with them, but to say that this book has no value is mistaken. this book, though much of i didnt find useful, the parts that i did find useful helped me strongly at a dark time in my life;
i have been leading a group of christians for a year and a bit now and i have seen much backstabbing, harsh words, willing breaking of what the bible asks us to uphold and much resistance to any plea to change, be it from pictures and words of scripture after prayer...i have had a lot thrown at me over the year and my soul ached...some things in that book were inspired, and were there to keep me going.
but i digress...also, i will add now that none of this is said in anger, is not intended to cause offence or annoyance and if it does i sincerely apologise! i can tell from your post you are a godly and god fearing man, and for that i rejoice!
which brings me to my next point; i disagree that god only has faith in his plan and not us, for the way God treats his people throughout the bible implies that, though anything could achieve anything else in God's Will, he created parts of his plan that would use us to the best of our abilities for his glory. if this were not so why then did he continue with the israelites when he offered moses' line this honour? Throughout the bible he encourages adulterous-but-also-repentant kings to become glorious, petulant and sulking prophets to become bold and people of no importance to become people of epic importance. If it were not the case that God has a plan that, though achievable through other means, he intended to be for us to use us for his glory at the best of our abilities, why then has he put up with the Church? 2000 years and countless atrocities, failings and flounderings are more than enough justification for God to tumble us and raise up a new Church...but he holds faith in us, in the Church, in humanity...(hear me out, my reasoning is below)
the people i help lead have screwed up many times, and i have screwed up more times than they, but God still uses us and blesses us and reminds us he has a plan for us, has faith in us. Allow me to explain: when you say to someone that you have faith in that someone you dont mean you are calling them a god or implying them worthy of worship (NOTE: Faith in Christ is entirely different) , but are saying you believe that they have potential, incredible potential. God took dust and made it mankind. God took the lowest of mankind and made them kings. God has faith in us to achieve the potentials he set in us before we were born. its our choice whether we use them or not.
and before you say it, yes i believe that God can use anyone to accomplish anything, and yes his plans can change because of human belligerence, but that does not change the fact that there are parts of his plan that he designed with us in mind, to use us to the best of our abilities.
And i shall finish with this; indeed some things in Bell's teachings arent correct, but then again neither is your attack on him on such a public spectrum. If you were truly concerned with his teachings then find him, either on the net or in person, send him an email and take him aside and share your concerns. the bible tells us to correct our brothers with compassion; implying them heretical on the internet is not that. I will confess also that my bible knowledge is not as precise as yours; i cannot call up verses from memory, but i do remember a story of jesus', about how a kingdom cannot stand if it fights itself.
please consider the kingdom of God on earth, and the fact we are all ambassadors, and that attacking one another so openly does no one any good. Consider 1 corinthians 6. I dont say this harshly and if it has come across as that then i sincerely apologise because it is not. ive seen too much church politics, christians attacking christians in thought and word...even deed at times. i long for the peace which surpasses all understanding and i long for the day all christians forget their differences and remember that they all follow one saviour...
May God bless you, your friends and your family and i look forward to discussing with you in person be it, by God's will, here on Earth or be it in Heaven.
Yours in Christ,
Trevor Francis
Travis,
I thank you for at least attempting to prove a Biblical reason behind your complaint. I was disappointed that Pastor Ian did no such thing.
You mentioned that you experienced a willful breaking of what the Bible asks us to uphold. Doesn’t that hurt when you see it? That’s what I saw it Rob’s book, a blatant contradiction of the Bible and denial of what it asks us to uphold.
I appreciate your kind words and gracious warning. No worries, I am not easily offended in any personal way when people online confront me about my mistakes.
Concerning your comments on God’s plan: it certainly IS the case that God has a plan that involves us. My point was that the plan is this way because of how awesome we are and how much potential we have. The plan includes us because God graciously chose to include us who weren’t worthy. I challenge you to find as much as you can in the Bible that speaks to the character of man in his sinful state. I’ll give you a hint: It’s not going to be “pretty good overall and full of potential.”
I just think that you are misinterpreting God’s motives for sticking with us. God doesn’t stick with us because we are so good deep down inside. We’re not good deep down inside! That’s what I’m trying to say (Jer 17:9).
My question then is, where and how are you getting your information? “God has faith in you” is most certainly NEVER found in the Bible. It is an invention that Rob Bell is not the first to articulate, unfortunately.
You mentioned that God made humans out of dust (even though He doesn’t need dust to make them). Are you then saying that God made humans out of the dust, because the dust had great potential? I think you’d be hard pressed to make the case that that is what the Bible is trying to communicate. Please note that only “God made humans out of the dust” is in the Bible. “Because the dust had great potential” is your opinion. We need to make sure we’re basing our opinions on the Bible, and as far as I can see, that opinion is not Biblical at all.
I certainly believe that we are a part of God’s plan. If we weren’t we wouldn’t be here. But again, it is simply arrogant to assume we’re here because of our own potential greatness. By your logic, even nothingness has potential greatness, since God made the universe out of complete nothingness. But that doesn’t say anything meaningful about the nothingness, it just speaks to how awesome God is! Am I right or am I wrong? Rob Bell actually said that it was the disciples’ greatness that was frustrating Jesus when they failed, because He knew they were capable of so much more… I’m sorry but Rob Bell is wrong. What can I say? He does not know what Jesus thought, for starters, because the Bible doesn’t tell us. Second, if we were to make an educated guess, we would see how the Bible speaks of humans throughout the rest of it, and it speak of us highly, to say the least.
Concerning “attacking” Rob Bell in a public spectrum: If Rob Bell had come to me personally and voiced these opinions to me and no one else, I would do the same in return. The only problem I have with your concern is that Rob Bell is spreading false teaching in a public spectrum on a large scale. He is attacking Biblical authority on a public spectrum. I think it is only appropriate, then, that I refute his teachings in a public spectrum on as massive a scale as my means will allow.
That is a great point that a kingdom cannot stand if it fights itself. I invite you to look at it from my perspective: Rob Bell is fighting against sound doctrine, scriptural authority, evangelism, God-centeredness, and eternal perspective. So whose fault is it when I defend these things and the church falls apart? Mine for defending it, or Rob Bell for destroying it? Of course, it is the one who is in the wrong whose fault it is for creating division, and that’s exactly what Rob Bell has done. The “divisive man” is not the one who vigorously defends the truth, it is he who distorts the truth and leads people into blatant error.
Travis, considering the kingdom of God on earth is exactly what I was attempting to do with this post. The closer to the truth the kingdom adheres, the better. Rob Bell is leading people away for the worst. 1 Corinthians 6 is addressing personal disputes in which Christians bring their case against one another in front of a secular court. That is sinful. It is not what I have done. I have presented my case against false teaching, and in front of no court. This is not a personal matter. I got those out in part 1. Part 2 was about how Rob Bell is attacking Biblical truth, and it is my place to defend it (1 Cor 10:4-5, 1 Pet 3:15). Notice that Rob Bell thinks Christianity that has to be defended is weak and insecure, whereas Paul and Peter tell us to refute “every high thing that brings itself up against the knowledge of God” and to “give a defese of the hope that is within us.”
I appreciate your blessing. I pray that God grows you and gives you greater understanding, a passion and trust in Him, losing all trust in yourself or anyone else.
Pastor Ian,
It seems to me that your comment had everything to do with my methods and nothing to do with my content. Furthermore does not seem to have any Biblical basis in it (You didn’t quote any verses) and I detect a backlash against modern American evangelical politics, which I did not bring into this post. Right Wing Evangelicalism is a red herring and has nothing to do with what I wrote here. Could you please defend your position that Rob Bell is a “more well thought out writer” in general than other writers in light of the 6 Biblically based concerns I outlined in my post?
Hi. I couldnt read all the posts....too long. Haha, God has faith in me. I know he does, he caled me his friend. He said he loved me, and he could save me, but it was my choice. I saw him across the river saying, just jump man, jump. And in his heart i bet there was a hint of....."he can do it, man i know he can". This is what i think of my friends, so if Jesus calls me his friend, not servant.
"My Resolutions
1) Resolved, to cultivate within myself a spirit of humility and slay the spirit of pride."
I'm not sure how you felt you wrote this, but when I read and it sounded very angry, prideful and lacking of humility. I would encourage you to consider this when writing.
Anonymous #1:
Why no name? I'm not an axe murderer!
Thanks for your comments! Did you consider the Biblical evidence I gave for God NOT having faith in us? I felt like you just disregarded that and are holding on the God that you have created in your mind. I appreciate the testimony you gave (not that I agree that it presents God's character accurately), but it is not authoritative. Only God's Word is authoritative! I encourage you to attempt to support yourself Biblically next time!
Anonymous #2:
No name from you either, huh? I understand, I suppose, but I really wish you anonymous folks would grant me the decency of knowing at least your first name! After all, you know mine!
I appreciate your straightforward admonishment. In all honesty, I did review this with some friends who a part of it sounded prideful, but not the whole way through as you have said. I assure you I did not intend to come across as "holier than thou" and if I did I'm sorry that's how you read it. Do you think perhaps you could have read the tone into the writing? After all, writing is tone-neutral!
Also, did you agree or disagree with the actual content of what I said? Remember that Paul praised God for those who preached the gospel, even if it was out of spite for him, because it doesn't matter who is preaching for what reason, as long as the gospel is preached (Phil 1:15-18)!
Evan
Thank you for your thoughtful review and clear thinking regarding the philosophical and theological assumptions of the emergent church movement.
Very well done.
I would like to have a more direct conversation with you if you would permit it. Can you email me at epiper@okwu.edu
Everett
Evan, thank you for commenting on my blog, I probably would never have gotten to your blog if you hadn't.
Now, as to "Velvet Elvis..."
I disagree with your decision to post opinion-based dislikes of Rob Bell's style, if only because it made me doubt the objectivity of the rest of your review. If you can't see beyond the man's style (I mean really dude, don't harass him for naming a book "Sex God," not when you haven't read it and just because it goes against your traditional preference of literature titles)
Doublespeak is from "1984." It's not a real term.
1. The issue of Rob Bell's relationship to doctrine.
So should someone first learn the doctrine of Christianity and then become a Christian? Isn't it OK if we begin a relationship with Christ and begin living a life for God if we don't know everything yet? It's a journey, we grow, we learn, we stretch... If we don't question things, how can we strengthen our faith? Are we to simply ignore science? Be ignorant of the world simply because it's the world and pretend like God didn't give the power of knowledge to the people in it? The entire Protestant Reformation came about because one man questioned a core doctrine.
2. Interpreting the Bible. We bring every experience, every memory, every opinion, every thought, every relationship into how we interpret anything. That's why a movie can make one person cry and leave the person next to them completely unaffected. Or a friend says something and you take it a certain way, while your other friend takes it as a joke. It's the same with the Bible. It's INTERPRETATION. And Rob Bell says to not just swallow what he's saying and to really think about it. It's his book, so obviously he's going to write his interpretations. Please, get off his back on that one, that's just ridiculous. And again with "1984." It was a fictional, political work, not something to be applied to life outside Eric Blair's (the man whose pseudonym was George Orwell) pages.
3. Unbiblical language. I understand your concern here, and I agree with the heart of what you're saying, that it can inadvertently soften the meaning of "truth." However, I attribute his wording to his writing style. I've listened to his Podcasts and it's just the way he talks. Honestly I'm grateful for it much of the time, because it opens up my mind to a new way to understand an infinite God.
4. Evangelism. I agree with you that we must both live and speak the Word of God. The thing is, unless we are pushy and instrusive with strangers, what they see first is our actions. If we love someone, but only if we think we can convert them, that's conditional love. And God loves unconditionally. To love with an agenda is to distort the very word. I understand wanting people to be saved and to know God's love and forgiveness and new life. But you have to reach people where they are at, that's what the "become all things so I might save some" bit comes in. It's about not placing yourself on a different level than them. Because it is NOT about YOU helping THEM. It's about we ALL are sinners and God helps all of us and our lives should reflect that saving love. Reflect. Not just yell from a soapbox. Relect and converse.
5. Man-centered theology. Duh God has a high view of us, if He didn't why would He send Jesus to die for us? If He thought we were just worthless dirtbags why go through all that trouble? To fulfill prophecy? Why make the prophecy in the first place if He didn't love us so much that He wanted to save us? You say " If He felt like it, He could rise up vessels from the rocks to carry out His will (Matt 3:9)." OK but He didn't, so obviously He thought you are of value.
6. "For example, he says "the gospel is good news, especially for those who don't believe it" (emphasis mine, 166)." Truthfully I think you misinterpreted what he meant here (see #2 for more on interpretation). Jesus asks who needs a doctor, the sick or the well. The gospel (doctor) is good news, especially for those who don't believe (the sick). PS, take this with a grain of salt.
As for the church throwing better parties, I'm torn. Because I believe that the truth about God and Jesus and the resurrection and forgiveness and all that is a beautiful and attractive thing in itself. But I think the church can disguise its beauty in rules that are based on man, not the Bible. So I get that Bell is saying we need to reveal the amazing, incredible thing of God's grace to the world. But we can't cloak it in the attached strings and religious obligations and still expect the world to feel nice looking at it. God is unattractive because it means people can't be focused on themselves any longer. That's why the world is unfriendly to the message. It's the church's job as the messenger to show the freedom God gives us.
My closing remarks
You didn't keep your personal side out of this review, which is why I found it difficult to buy. While passion is admirable, you can't pretend that you're writing an objective review when you can't hold in your opinions. Any respectable review is unbiased. This post was not a review so much as a retort.
It had me thinking, however, and I thank you for that. But the effect is one you would find undesirable, for your writing has made me just want to read "Velvet Elvis" several times more.
Have a good weekend (: I'm not sure if Blogger will let me know if you respond, so if it doesn't, please feel free to let me know you have and I'll be happy to get back to you.
I’m sorry my part 1 review was so distracting to you! It was meant to be quite the opposite. I didn’t want anyone claiming that the objections I was giving were just preferential so I decided to say “here, look, these are my preferential issues with the book, but that can’t determine the truth value of it.” Did you miss the part where I said “I have no theological basis for these reasons”? It was simply to dispel any myths that my later objections were all preference. I wanted to distinguish the two. Apparently that is not how it came across with you.
What do you mean when you say that you don’t think “doublespeak” is a ‘real term?’ It has a meaning doesn’t it: Holding (speaking) two contradictory beliefs at the same time. That’s what I mean when I use it anyways. It’s just a word (made-up albeit, but nonetheless legitimate) that accurately expresses and idea that I’m trying to convey. That’s what words are. They’re all made up, really, so I don’t understand what the objection is here. The point is that when I say doublespeak I mean that someone is saying to contradictory things, which is not acceptable. But this isn’t about what terms I use, so much as what I had to say and why you didn’t like it, so let’s get to that.
1. The issue of Rob Bell's relationship to doctrine.
Amanda, I don’t know how anyone could possibly become a Christian before knowing Christian doctrine. Do you have to believe you’re a sinner? Yea. Well that’s doctrine isn’t it?! I mean… you don’t have to have firm convictions on eschatology, but come on, you can’t just ignore it all and “jump on in.” It is certainly ok to not know everything yet, but I think you’re missing Bell’s point. He didn’t say, “you don’t have to know everything,” he said that you didn’t have to know anything at all! Check out the quote again, it’s pretty scary. I would never reject someone who wanted to become a Christian but couldn’t name all the different loves of God (I don’t even know that I can!). When did I imply “don’t question things?” One can question all one wants. I would certainly encourage anyone to know why what he or she believes is true. But if one starts rejecting core doctrines like the Trinity, I’m sorry but that person is not a Christian. I think I may have not clarified that there’s a difference between discernment and rejection-of-the- necessity-of-core-doctrines.
How did science get brought into this? I’m confused. Are you an evolutionist? I don’t see how science or knowledge of general truths in the world has anything to do with my objection. Perhaps you could clear that up for me.
2. Interpreting the Bible.
“We bring every experience, every memory, every opinion, every thought, every relationship into how we interpret anything.”
2 comments.
1) If what you mean by this is that no one’s interpretation is better than anyone else’s, then I should just ignore the rest of what you have to say, since you are clearly INTERPRETING what I said about Rob’s book incorrectly. I mean, you’re bringing every experience, every memory, every opinion, every thought, and every relationship into how you are interpreting my blog post! So it can’t possibly be a correct interpretation, just YOUR interpretation. And that really means nothing to me. If you didn’t interpret my post accurately, then your objections are just attacking straw men.
2) Do you really think we bring everything into how we interpret anything? I mean… I guess I understand your point that we don’t know what might be affecting us when we read certain things, but surely you don’t think we bring our WHOLE LIFE into how we interpret the labels on food at the grocery store!
“It's his book, so obviously he's going to write his interpretations.”
You’re not the first person who’s read my post who missed the point of my complaint. The point was that he was being hypocritical. If all anyone can do is bring their interpretation to the table, and he doesn’t respect that interpretation solely on the basis that it is theirs, then by the same token, we ought to reject his book, simply because it is his interpretation. Everyone agrees this is ridiculous, which proves my point about Rob Bell’s comment being ridiculous.
3. Unbiblical language.
The more people comment here, the more I agree that this is the most subjective of all my objections, so I’ll just drop it. It’s not even worth it at this point. If it helps you understand God in truth, great, but I have no idea what he is saying half the time. And to be honest, I think the only reason it helps anyone is because they do exactly what you warned of. They read their life and their ideas into what he’s saying and then feel validated. THAT is just a theory that I can’t prove, though, so you don’t have to think much of it if you don’t want.
4. Evangelism.
You seem to think that the only way to talk to strangers is by being pushy and intrusive! This is certainly not the case, as you will quickly find out if you ever try approaching strangers with genuine humility and love. I highly recommend you try it some time!
I hate to break it to you, Amanda, but God loves with an agenda. And aren’t I glad! It is the reason why every Christian is saved, and why every Christian is growing in holiness. I noticed that even the quote you gave is chocked full of agenda: “so that by all means I might save some.” That’s an agenda. To save some. That’s Paul’s agenda. That’s my agenda. Is it yours?
I love conversation. I love loving people. I love God and I desire that everyone be converted from their wickedness and know God. Rob Bell does not want me to desire this, as you’ll see if you read the quote again. I’m not talking about screaming angrily from a soapbox at no one.
5. Man-centered theology.
“Duh God has a high view of us, if He didn't why would He send Jesus to die for us?”
Easy. He did it glorify himself by showing the riches of his love to his elect while they were sinners (Rom 5:8), God haters (Rom 1:30), desperately wicked (Jer 17:9), immoral (Col 3:5), murderers (Rom 3:15), liars (Rom 3:13), slanderers (Rom 1:30), and thieves (Mark 7:21).
Please, show me any verse that directly extols the value or greatness of man. I doubt that you can find even one. Inferring it from Christ’s death is not legitimate. Also, going back to Eden where God says “it is good” is not legitimate either, since we have fallen far from that place of goodness.
The whole point of John the Baptist saying that verse to the Pharisees was to show that God does not need you. You’re value does not put any restraints on what God does, and it is solely by his grace that you are saved, used, redeemed, etc. If one does not grasp ones unworthiness before God, one will never truly or fully appreciate the love of God. Amanda, if you think God saved you because you were too valuable to let go, then you are missing out on seeing how great God’s love really is! The whole point of the cross is “you’re unworthy of my acceptance, so you need someone who IS worthy to stand in for you.” How can you miss this?
6. On eternal vs. temporal perspective.
I agree that the gospel is good news for those that don’t believe it, in that they CAN believe it and get saved. Check out Bell’s description of why the gospel is good news for those who don’t believe, however, and you will find that this is precisely NOT what he thinks. He thinks it is good news because the unbelievers get nicer neighbors. I’m not kidding. It’s in there. The problem I had with this was that he said it was good news ESPECIALLY for those who don’t believe. Are we to believe then, that eternal life is not quite as good news as having a more loving next door neighbor? I mean… eternal life is nice… but WOW, my neighbor brings me cookies. This is great… wait what? Cookies better than eternal life? Do you understand what I’m getting at? It’s hard to express it all in writing.
If I ever disguise the beauty of God and redemption with rules based on man’s teaching and tradition, call me out, because I definitely don’t want to do that.
Where do you get that Bell thinks we want to reveal “the incredible, amazing grace of God to God’s world”? I didn’t see that in there at all. I just read that if you can’t do things the world likes to do really well (party) in a Christian way, then you don’t have the right to share the forgiveness of God with them (witness to them). Perhaps I messed up on my interpretation here. If so, let me know where and why you think so.
And of course we can’t have hidden strings and religious obligations. That’s why I say, “Don’t hide them!” I agreed with a lot of what you said here. The world doesn’t like the message, because they can’t be focused on themselves anymore. Excellent point.
Closing Remarks
Perhaps you would be so kind as to let me know where my personal opinions were injected into the matter? (And here I’m of course referring to the second post, not the first, which was clearly marked in big red letters “PERSONAL OPINION, NOT BASED ON THE BIBLE”). As far as I can tell, I gave an accurate warning to Christians to watch out for this book. Call the post what you will, the question is: “Is it true?”
I’m glad it had you thinking. Hopefully I can change your mind on the issue! I would love to talk to you in person some time. Perhaps the opportunity will present itself if I ever visit the So Cal area.
Looking forward to your response…
I appreciate that you put ou thtere what your personal qualms were regarding the book. My point was just that if you couldn't hold them in and present the book as objectively as possible, then I wondered how much they ruled what you read. That's all.
Doublespeak... I'm not arguing back because it is pointless and has nothing to do with the actual book.
1. For Rob Bell saying you don't have to know anything, I think that's interpretation again isn't it? I interpret that more loosely, choosing to take it with a grain of salt and believing he means you don't have to know everything, rather than you don't have to know anything. You take it more literally. OK.
Science. Not an evolutionist, no. I didn't mean to bring science into this as a huge point or something, I'm just saying we have to test our faith. Science and fossils and land formations, etc say the Great Flood never happened. So do I ignore evidence and continue believing it happened? Or do I think, "Ok maybe it was metaphorical" or figure out some other way to explain it? Or maybe I keep searching for scientific evidence to show it DID really happen, etc.
My point is, be willing to question. The feel of your entire post was that you will not even listen to what someone else is saying. You'll pretend (maybe not even on purpose) to because that's the Christian thing to do, but you're not really considering what they're saying. Looking at your replies to all these comments sort of just affirms that. But I dunno, could just be my interpretation..
2. Speaking of interpretations...
My interpretation of that comment is you're sort of a prick.
(PS God still loves me, just as much as He loves you in fact, even though I said that)
OK but seriously... Yes, I'm interpreting your post. And maybe I'm doing it incorrectly. Who cares, it's an interpretation. And your review is on your interpretation of the book. I think your interpretation is wrong. But it's an interpretation.
Interpretation=opinion. How can there truly be right or wrong interpretation? Unless you're missing the point of what the source is saying. Which I think you did with this book. You've gotten so lost in the details you've failed to see the whole POINT. That's what I've *interpreted* from what you've said.
O please, take what I'm saying with a grain of salt (or common sense, whichever is your poison). If you're reading the label with your whole life brought into it (oh no! Sugar! Bad memories! Repress! Repress!) then you're beyond professional help.
"The point was that he was being hypocritical."
OK that's your interpretation. But does he need to say that since it's his book, he'll be offering his interpretation, so please ladies and gentlemen, realize this is what HE thinks? Does he really need to say that? I think it's a given.
3. I agree that people will read into it their own stories and lives and feel validated. But I feel like we can trust God to turn them to (real) truth at some point along the path. When people turn to God, it has very very little to do with our part in it, and a WHOLE LOT more to do with what God does in their heart. I mean are we realy that much of control freaks?
4. Evangelism... Maybe I've had horrible luck with evangelists, because every time someone has come up to me to tell me about Jesus, they were pushy and intrusive. So I dunno, maybe it's just a weird fluke having multiple experiences like that. Because I know people who believe in handing out trac(k?)s and all that but they are very nice people, not pushy or intrusive.
Evangelism isn't the only way to help people come to know God. I mean evangelism in the sense of walking up to strangers and talking about God, PS. There are multiple ways. Based on our gifts, I think. Disagree with that if you wish, argue back all you like, that's one point you won't move me from.
I'm choosing not to respond to the agenda part. You aren't understanding what I'm saying so I'm not going to waste my energy and time when you're already so set in this.
5. The point isn't that man is so fantastic, God couldn't help but love him. The point is that we suck and we know it and God knows it, but He chose to love us. God loves us. Maybe it's my interpretation again, but when I'm loved, I feel valued, whether or not I really have any value at all. Does that make more sense? I know we're worthless dirtbags. But God loves us. His love is what gives us value, not that we deserve it on our own merit.
6. OK I read through that part in the book where Bell talks about neighbors and all that. My interpretation (wink, wink) of his point is that when we become such loving neighbors, it transforms the people around us. They want to join. I feel like he is saying we show God's love to them. We represent God. And maybe they'll come around. Maybe they won't. But they still receive the love either way.
OK you asked for this... In interacting with you on this, I feel as though you've turned God's grace into a rule. Like, "accept it or face the consequences." Which is true. But that presentation distorts the message behind it. As face value it's true, but under the surface is where I feel like it's... skewed I suppose.
But to each his own. I applaud you for the passion you have for Christianity and for the effort you put forth to express God's love to a hurting world.
Where did I get that Bells wants us to show God's grace?
Well. He wrote a whole book on loving people and living out Christianity. I think the time alone it takes to do that means he wants it. But I'm inferring.
You know, I think this whole conversation comes down to our interpretations (again!). I mean I genuinely feel like neither of us is going to be swayed. So........ God bless. haha but really. Have a great week (:
O PS as for putting your personal stuff into it all, it was throughout your post and your replies. It's the way you say things, and how it honestly is in sort of a demeaning manner. I don't feel like I could talk to you about my weaknesses or what I'm going through or things I struggle with, because you would look at it and just tell me I'm dumb or something for struggling with those things rather than helping me through them.
That's what I get from the post and your replies. I trust Julie's friendship with you to be proof enough you're not really like that in person. This is just the feel I get from your writing.
I find that 'Velvet Elvis' and 'A Generous Orthodoxy' (Brian McLaren) are the most encouraging books that I have ever read as a Christian. I have read loads whilst doing my theological training, but these are the two things that make me want to be a Christian!
The one part of this whole debate which has made me smirk is the way that anyone can quote a single Bible verse, or phrase, to prove a point; this is typical of evangelicals and it is quite simply wrong. We have to look at the bigger picture of the scriptures because so many of the words have changed in their meanings, and any argument based on this style of theology is very, very immature.
The Bible is a mysterious and beautiful book full of literature, historical fact, poetry and folklore. To read it in any other way makes little sense. It is a book which is absolutely 'true', but to consider it as absolutely 'literal' when it was handed down around campfires for centuries is foolish. It is with this reading and understanding of the text that I believe Bell, McLaren and many other 'emergent' writers are trying reinterpret the Christian faith.
I applaud Rob Bell for this illustration of 'springs'; the bricks which I used to use make little sense when one starts understanding the complexity, culture and beauty of the Bible.
I loved that the 'Trinity' can be a 'spring' rather than a 'brick'; to be honest, nobody has a clue about the Trinity and yet it is presented as a brick. A 'spring' gives us room to ask questions, develop faith and gain understanding. It has put the beauty back in the Bible and lets us answer questions with another question - which is something that Jesus did frequently. Evangelicals like to have black and white answers to everything when there are none and in doing so they either fool other people or fool themselves.
Wow, this is great! I should do more stuff on Bell or McLaren; they certainly draw a lot of traffic!
Where are you doing your theological training?
If the lifestyle and theology these books espouse are attractive to you, then you do not want to be a disciple of Christ. They (well, Bell at least; I haven’t actually read McLaren, but I haven’t heard good things either) do not accurately represent what a Christian life is like.
Such a technique (of quoting Bible verses) is only wrong if quoting the verse out of context actually misrepresents what the Bible teaches. Simply quoting a verse in isolation does not invalidate the point one is trying to make. What I would ask that you do is respect me and the time I put into this enough to do at least a little explaining about why you think I have misrepresented what the Bible is teaching. How have the specific verses (and I might remind you that they are plural not singular as you have insinuated) I quoted been misrepresented? And by the way, the following is not a legitimate explanation:
“The Bible is a mysterious and beautiful book full of literature, historical fact, poetry and folklore. To read it in any other way makes little sense. It is a book which is absolutely 'true', but to consider it as absolutely 'literal' when it was handed down around campfires for centuries is foolish. It is with this reading and understanding of the text that I believe Bell, McLaren and many other 'emergent' writers are trying reinterpret the Christian faith.”
Handed down around campfires for centuries? I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that “handed down around campfires” is just a phrase to mean “told audibly but not written down.” I don’t know of any significant portion of scripture that is based on oral tradition handed down for “centuries.” Perhaps you could point those out to me.
Nobody has a clue about the Trinity? Have you thoroughly interviewed everyone on earth to know this omniscient statement of yours? Look, I’m not against asking questions, but if you come up with different answers, then you’re a heretic and there’s no way around it! This is not just because “I really like the doctrine of the Trinity and if you mess with it I don’t like you.” The Trinity has deep theological implications, especially for the incarnation and atonement. You can’t have one without the others, and that is why I hold it so tightly. Besides that, the Trinity is my God. If you worship another, you worship a false one, and that’s not a good situation either…
You accused me of quoting just 1 Bible verse: you haven’t quoted any. You accused me of giving black and white answers (as if that were a bad thing…): you haven’t given any kind of answers. You let your prejudices against “Evangelicals” get in the way of your logic. You have given no evidence whatsoever (not even extra-biblical!) for your point of view, just your opinions.
Evan,
Thanks for your cogent, biblically based thinking regarding Bell's book. It's no surprise that a book that espouses flexible doctrine would appeal to fallen mankind. The success of a doctrine or of a book's message lies not in its ability to help us through a dark time but rather in the accuracy of it reflection of Biblical truths. Keep studying and seeking Him above all else.
Well, a few years has passed since you posted this "review," and it may be silly for me to respond now, but ... I hope things are going well for you, and all involved in the discussion. I like your "resolved" statements from 2008 (on your blog home page).
I used to be in a very similar place as you, Evan, as far as I can tell, and one day I woke up and was disgusted with my arrogance and inability to really love "others."
Now, I no longer walk this journey with the Spirit with lots of luggage dragging behind me, but rather with a handbag of doctrine. My burden is light, and I'm freed up to love anyone/everyone (and by means am not perfect at it) and receive God's grace and forgiveness, without needing to have control or police others' ideas about God, theology, religion, etc. (or at least I more readily catch myself in the act).
I Cor 13 has helped me a lot, as well as consulting a wide variety of friends, whose backgrounds and theologies are all over the map. I had to lose my religiosity in order to find my faith, my real life ... and boy is this still a daily journey.
And mysticism and contemplative spirituality has been a huge help!
Without seeking to be injurious to you, this is what I read as the epitome of arrogance from one of your statements: "If the lifestyle and theology these books espouse are attractive to you, then you do not want to be a disciple of Christ." The Spirit draws people to God in ways that cannot be codified by any religion or system for finding God. God does whatever God jolly well pleases.
I'm so hoping that your passion for Jesus, life, meaningfulness and the like is still fanned into flame, but that a healthy dose of humility and insane love tempers your judgment of others. It's a dangerous thing to be a disciple of Jesus: dying to self is a daily ritual, we don't have a step-by-step manual, we're immersed in culture, we have different levels of awareness and knowledge and so all see dimly through glass (or have pinched horizons), and so forth.
I wonder if you've encountered centered-set vs. bounded-set theology. That has also been a source of help for me.
I've also enjoyed reading Missional Church by Guder, among other things.
Also, I recently heard a thought from C.S. Lewis that there are not 100% Christians and 100% non-Christians, only those who are slowly moving towards Jesus (becoming Christian) and those slowly moving away. And to judge people at any point along that continuum is a bit preposterous. There is one judge!
I mean you no harm, but feel I could share these things with you, given our shared commitment to be disciples of Jesus.
Peace,
Nick
acheforhome@gmail.com
Here's a few quotes of late, I like: "Humility is what gives us the vision to look upon our world with fresh eyes. Humility enables us to respect others enough to put down our spurious images of ourselves and open our arms, as individuals and as a nation." - Joan Chittister
"Anyone who holds on to life just as it is destroys that life. But if you let it go, reckless in your love, you'll have it forever, real and eternal." Jesus
The man who sweats under his mask, whose role makes him itch with discomfort, who hates the division in himself, is already beginning to be free. -Thomas Merton
"It is in community that we come to see God in the other. It is in community that we see our own emptiness filled up. It is community that call me beyond the pinched horizons of my own life, my own country, my own race, and gives me the gifts I do not have within me." Joan Chittister
Post a Comment