Velvet Elvis Conversation

I've had the privilege of having a more extended discussion with one Amanda K on the topic of Velvet Elvis. The comments preceding this post can be found at the original Velvet Elvis review.

I appreciate that you put [out there] 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.

Alright, but the only reason you'd want to bring in the fact that my opinions were involved is for explanatory power in showing why I made a mistake. But that's a pointless endeavor to make before you've even proven I made any mistake at all! First you move prove that I made a mistake, then you can attempt to offer an explanation as to why I might have made that mistake. But before you've proven I made a mistake, proving why I would have done so is irrelevant.

Doublespeak... I'm not arguing back because it is pointless and has nothing to do with the actual book.

Fair enough!

1. For Rob Bell saying you don't have to know anything, I think that's interpretation again isn't it?

Maybe it is, but that doesn't mean it's wrong. Here's the quote again: "You don't have to know anything about the springs to pursue living 'the way.'" -Velvet Elvis, 34. It is clear from the context that he means the "springs" are the doctrines and "the way" is Christianity. That is my only 'interpretation' and it is certainly warranted by the context. Let me restate the sentence with the definitions of his words inserted: "You don't have to know anything about Christian doctrine to pursue living the Christian life." I'd say that's pretty straightforward.

"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."

"Literally," I suspect, is a loaded term. I take his sentence at face value. Perhaps he does mean what you're saying, but that's not what the sentence I quoted means. "You don't have to know anything" doesn't mean "you don't have to know everything" just because we want it to. If he means the latter, and said the former, then he is an incredibly sloppy writer. By the way, biting the bullet on this one and admitting him a sloppy writer does not prove that he meant the latter.

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.

If the Flood never happened, then Jesus was not God, and the New Testament writers were not under inspiration of the Holy Spirit. This is not a leap of logic. Jesus believed in a literal worldwide flood (Matt 24:38-9), and Peter believed in it (2 Pet 2:5). God cannot be wrong. So if they were wrong, then they are not from God. What I am stressing here is that doctrine is quite necessary, contrary to what Bell claims. Surely he would point out that my Christianity is "weaker" because his would be able to stand even if the flood were proved wrong. If his Christianity is still standing while the flood does not exist, then He is serving a lying God! I do not believe he's doing this, but he certainly seems to open the door to the possibility, which is dangerous enough for me to call it out.

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…

Amanda, I've been studying this for a while now (though not long at all compared to some), and I have to admit, I've come to have strong convictions about certain points of truth that I have discovered (for example, the Flood). So, if I am not given rock solid reasons to question what I've been convinced of, then I simply am not going to budge. This is not something I can be faulted for. It's not as if I ignore what people say. I consider what they say, and often times I quickly evaluate that it is not of substance or not worth considering. For example, I did this with Rob Bell's book. You cannot (and should not) have some sort of crisis of faith every time anyone offers anything new. Yes, ask questions, but to what end? For the sake of asking questions? Surely not. I asked many hard questions of myself and of God. The point of that was to get answers! Now I believe I have arrived at a knowledge of certain truths and of the Truth Himself. It takes something more substantial than a mere suggestion to start the whole process over again.

2. Speaking of interpretations...
My interpretation of that comment is you're sort of a [*****].
(PS God still loves me, just as much as He loves you in fact, even though I said that)

I was reading through Colossians recently. Consider this a loving rebuke: "But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander and obscene talk from your mouth" (Col 3: 8). You also might consider this one: "If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person's religion is worthless" (James 1:26). I don't make many requests as to the character of those posting, but I've really never had any issues. It's too bad the first one had to come from a Christian. I want your religion to be full of value and significance, but we all destroy that when we use unwholesome words (Eph 4:29).

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.

What would you say the point of this book was?

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.

Of course it's a given that people are expressing their own opinions. But he faulted someone's opinion merely on the basis that it was their opinion. It made him sick because it belonged to them. He did not say "they believed x, and here's why x is wrong. And they believed y, and here's why y is wrong." He just said that their comment about him teaching the Bible made him sick simply because he knew it was just their opinion of the Bible. Well of course it's your opinion of what the Bible teaches, but that's irrelevant. What's relevant is whose opinion is right.

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?

Ok, I'm going to interpret what you just said, and you can tell me if it's accurate. "I agree that people will read into Rob Bell's book their own stories and lives and thereby inject foreign meaning into his words, and therefore feel as if he is validating their opinion. But God can change anyone's heart. He is in control and so you ought not fault anyone who is making it easier for people to lie to themselves about what God teaches us to do." I don't know if you realize this, but that is hyper-Calvinism. You are denying the responsibility of the prophet to make the word of God clear. This is clear even from your original comment, without considering my interpretation. In the same vein we could say "I agree that Joel Osteen preaches a false gospel, but God is in control and will bring around who He wishes in His own time, so you can't fault Joel for his sincerity." Huh? If the dude is off the track, he needs to get on it. That's what God wants, end of story! I'm in no wise denying God's sovereignty. I consider myself heavily reformed in my theology, but this does not toss out human responsibility, which seems to be what you just did. If I'm wrong (and I hope I am), let me know.

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.

If you call yourself a Christian, why did they have to be pushy and intrusive? It seems to me you would have been excited to meet another believer! Nevertheless, perhaps their activities were unwarranted. I agree, those can get really annoying, and even bring reproach to the gospel. Tract is the word you're looking for. I tract a bit myself, and I do my best not to be the "annoying salesperson." If people don't want it, they don't have to have it. I always seem to run out giving them to people who take them willingly anyways.

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 agree that contact evangelism isn't the only way to do evangelism, but it is quite a blessing when it gets done. You do find people who are interested in engaging you and those are some of the most exciting times. Especially when you realized that your hard work preparing is paying off!

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.

I suppose I'm not! Understanding you, that is. Perhaps you mean that you hate it when people ditch unbelieving friends just because they've given up on any hope of converting them. I think the solution is not to eliminate hope of conversion as a motivation for friendship, but to never let go of that hope, and to always be friends, not forsaking the community.

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.

That makes perfect sense, and I agree! Especially with your last sentence. We're worthless in that we are not attractive to God for salvation.

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.

Great! And are these benefits better than the ones received by the believers?

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.

What do you mean by turning God's grace into a rule?

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.

I appreciate that!

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.

Alright, fair enough. I would simply argue that he doesn't do a super job (that being an understatement).

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 (:

It is possible to come to a conclusion about who has the right interpretation!!

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 admit that there is a different dynamic when we're talking about (and in) private versus public forums. Thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt!