Velvet Elvis Discussion with David Wilson

This is my response to a short book (and I'm only half kidding!) sent to me by David Wilson, a personal friend of mine, in response to my critique of Velvet Elvis. Thanks, David, for giving me permission to post this publicly.

Disclaimer:
I do not speak for Rob Bell. This Critique is also not to convince Evan of the quality of the book. Neither is this an attack on Evan's personage, Evan is a close-personal friend of mine. Also I do not think that Evan is wronging Mr. Rob Bell by his review. He has done exactly what Rob Bell has asked, to look at the book critically and to take from it what he may. Now to my critique of this Review.

I appreciate the disclaimer. And sorry it's taken so long to get back to you on this.

I will start by talking about the first part of Evan's review the so-called "Peeves". Firstly I want to partially agree with Evan on this that Rob Bell likes title that catch the attention of the passer-by. This is something you will see Bell do many times which having sometimes shocking sometimes strange statements such as a book called Velvet Elvis, not however for sheer shock value however but to challenge assumptions. Now for my first Critique. Evan said "Repainting Christianity is like repainting the Mona Lisa. All you get out of the deal is a fake (or a different painting altogether...)" here is my challenge to this, Bell is not suggesting that Christianity is something that needs to be repainted, as in saying that it is not good and needs to be fixed. What he is saying, at least to me, is this if we claim to believe in an infinite omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent God, as finite, sometimes (maybe even oftentimes) foolish, unseeing creations. How can we say that we have figured it all out? What Bell I feel is saying is that we need to take what we have learned from the theologians of the past and now continue to seek deeper understanding of who God is in that. I feel he captures that when he says "times change, God doesn't but times do. We learn and grow, and the world around us shifts, and the Christian faith is alive only when it is listening, morphing, innovating, letting go of whatever has gotten in the way of Jesus and Embracing whatever will help us be more and more the people god wants us to be."(Bell, 11) He is not saying that Christianity is wrong or flawed. Christianity is perfect, Christians aren't and thereby need to be watched, listened to and when necessary corrected. Paul shows us this in his criticism of Peter. We are called to challenge what we are taught "I know your works, your toil and your patient endurance, and how you cannot bear with those who are evil, but have tested those who call themselves apostles and are not, and found them to be false."(Rev 2:2 ESV) Here we se Christ commending a church for challenging what they were taught against the scriptures, Bell is calling us to do that, to take what men have said and put it to the test against what God has said.

Notice, however, that Bell claims "the Christian faith is alive only when it is listening, morphing, etc." I'm sure he fits in Jude 3: "contend earnestly for the faith once for all delivered to the saints" somewhere in his theology. I'm just not sure where or how. Or maybe he's just doesn't use words very precisely, which would be intensely frustrating, because then you would never really know what he's trying to say.

I am going to just go ahead and skip the rest of the comments about my "peeve" section. My peeves aren't the issue, so I'll just jump over that.

Now I move on past Evan's peeves, Evan claims that Velvet Elvis is "dangerous, poisonous, and ungodly". I can hardly think of a statement more harmful to the community of believers, I then can be considered dangerous, poisonous and harmful because I to agree with Bell on the mass majority of his writings. I feel this goes to an extreme and is inappropriate merely on the basis of saying that Bell's book, which has many people to Christ, is the work of the devil.

I would like to know about these people who were led to Christ by this book. I'm not talking about people who didn't go to church but now they do, I'm talking about genuine, committed converts. Who was converted in reading this book?

I will now combat Evan's 6 Reasons You Should Not Spend Money on Velvet Elvis

1. Bell does not take Doctrine Seriously.
Evan disapproval of the trampoline analogy is understandable. And I agree to an extent that the analogy is a bad one. However I think it does have merit in it. When I first read that passage I was upset by it, not to Evan's extent perhaps but I did see the flaw, Bell removes the pivotal support of the trampoline. The firm, unmoving base. I think that there are gray area's in Christianity, that is that there are areas of theology that do not need to be agreed upon by all believer to gain entrance into heaven. I wish Bell had used something other than the trinity however to show that. I believe that the trinity is an imperative to the faith. And moreover I know Bell would agree with me on that from knowing his own theology.

That's fine if Bell himself agrees with you when he isn't writing books, but it's certainly not the message he's sending here. The simple fact of the matter is that he used the Trinity. He used the virgin birth. These are not what we'd call "non-essentials." He's treading on dangerous ground. His point about the Trinity not being fully known or articulated until the 4^th century was the best point he could make. However, I don't think that this fits the analogy of a spring at all. It's not like the understanding fluctuated with the times, it simply developed with more and more revelation. (Sort of like a brick wall might with more and more bricks?) People before that probably did not understand the full nature of God in the same way, but that doesn't imply that they denied it. There are hints at plurality in the Old Testament as well, so we can't rule out all understanding.

However we do need to be flexible, it's okay if someone doesn't go to the same denomination as me, or read the same translation of the bible, what Bell is doing there is challenging us to consider, I feel as I feel he does later when he talks about what if the virgin birth meant something different than we think, and what I take from this portion is this. We need to decide what are imperative and what are not imperatives to the gospel, and then with the nonimperatives say that I don't have to agree with this but it doesn't jeopardize their salvation. As to Bell not saying this is legalism I think he shows that in the comparison to "brickianity" where he sites the pastor saying that if you don't believe in a literal seven day creation that it is the same thing as saying that Jesus never died on the cross.

We must realize, however, that Bell says nothing about what you're "taking away," right? I mean, he doesn't talk about any imperatives to the gospel whatsoever. He says you don't have to know anything about Christian doctrine to become a Christian and start living life like Jesus. This is patently false. It is so obviously false that the fact that he put that in there makes me question which Jesus he's following. Hard words, I'm sure, but you certainly do have to know some doctrine to be saved. Like I said to Amanda: you gotta know you're a sinner! You gotta know you've broken God's law. This is all doctrine. You have to know that Christ died for the sins of sinners. Oops. More doctrine!

I agree with him that God is too big to be boxed in.

Can you also explain to me what that phrase means exactly?

2. Rob Bell claims that no one can ever tell you what the Bible is really saying.
Bell speaks of the mystery of God that God is too great for us to understand. Not that we can never know what the bible is saying but that there is always more to learn. Did you know that Augustine wrote 6 commentaries on Genesis? He couldn't stop seeing more of God each time. And you're correct that he does say that we come from a specific perspective of scripture, of course we do. God shapes our lives and moves us so that each of us can gain some insight that is unique on scripture. A holocaust survivor has a different perspective on the verse Romans 8:28 than someone raised in the lap of luxuries. Look up sermons on the book of Romans, than read commentaries on it and you will see different perspectives on everything contained within. What Bell I feel is challenging there is that God is to big for any one man to comprehend or any group of men, and so is his word, not that we can't come to a proper understanding of it but merely not a full understanding of it.

I don't remember any of this being in Velvet Elvis.

By the way as to Evans comment "I penciled in a note there, which says: "You mean your version of what Jesus believed about them?" it is a rule in writing that when you are writing that you don't have to and probably shouldn't say "in my opinion" because it weakens your essay and is redundant since you are writing it so it will always be your opinion. You are not supposed to qualify statements.

You seem to have missed the point of my comment. I said that because Rob Bell was being hypocritical. He got angry at someone's comment. Their comment was that "As long as you teach the Bible, I'm OK with you." He got mad and faulted them for saying such a thing because he knew they were only talking about their interpretation. He provided no other reason to fault this person's comment. He then proceeded to give us his opinion. If we applied his logic to himself, we could equally reject his opinion, simply because it was his!

3. Rob Bell uses unnecessarily confusing, unbiblical language.
Bell writes in the poetic form, I like this idea and find beauty in his statements I don't see Evan explain how they are confusing and feel that this point would be better suited to his peeves due to the fact that while confusing to him it is not to many people.

He uses phrases like "God is the ultimate reality." Please explain what that means, and give me good reason to believe that you're interpreting it correctly, because I have no idea what it means, nor am I convinced that it has any real meaning at all.

Moreover I would argue this many Christian writers use language which is unintelligible to non-Christians. Words such as sanctification, redemption, edify, and many other theological terms which we use can merely distance ourselves from those we wish to reach. What Evan finds confusing and unintelligible in this book may just be a breath of fresh air for those uneducated in theological terminology.

We have our own Frisbee lingo at Stanford when we play Ultimate. The first thing we do when we get new people coming in is teach them the language, so they can understand. I think the same should be done for non-Christians interested in Christianity, which seems like the audience he's going for.

Rob Bell believes that the church should "surrender its desire to convert people"
Bell follows a scriptural basis laid down by Christ in Matthew 5:16 which says "In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven."(ESV) Bell feels that your witness is more valuable by works not speech and that we should focus on doing God's word not just on conversions.

Your witness (speech) should be validated by your life (works). Bell is not saying this, though. He's saying "stop speaking the gospel altogether." Stop wanting to convert people. Uh… wrong. That's what we're all about. The desire of my heart should be to see those around me saved (Rom 10:1). Why do we become "all things to all people"? "So that by all means [we] might save some" (1 Cor 9:22)! Matthew 5:16 is not in conflict with these goals, but Rob Bells position is.

I feel sometime we can get so caught up with getting as many people as possible to repent that we do things for the wrong reasons not to follow Christ but to gain numbers, this explains to me why crusades have a 92% backslide rate of people who accept Christ but do not follow through with that commitment.

Well if they didn't follow through then I guess they never repented! People who repent don't "unrepent." People who put their faith in Christ don't "unput" their faith in Christ. Otherwise, it was never genuine faith or repentance to begin with (1 John 2:19).

However, I agree with Evan that there is a need for both. I do not feel that Bell's perspective makes the book not worth reading. I will agree that this is an area where Bell falls short in my opinion.

Any book that tells you to stop evangelizing the lost does not deserve to touch human hands. Can you tell I'm mad at Rob Bell? Anybody who takes him at his word will see that this is destructive to the church. We don't need less evangelism; we need more evangelism done the right way.

4. Rob Bell promotes man-centered theology.
Bell does not say that man is not sinful; he does not claim man may survive without grace. He disagrees with that. But what he does say is that "God has an incredibly high view of people" that is not saying that men are basically good and have no need of grace. But that God choose us, set us apart for a purpose and knows that we can accomplish it through Him.

Key phrase that you're sneaking in: "through Him."

We are His creations He would be a bad creator if he had no faith that his creation's could not fulfill what he had called us to do.

Really? Alrighty then. Let's see what man does and does not do.

• Our hearts are deceitful and desperately sick (Jer 17:9).
• We are full of evil (Mark 7:21-23).
• We love darkness rather than light (John 3:19).
• We are unrighteous, do not understand, do not seek for God (Rom 3:10-12).
• We are helpless and ungodly (Rom 5:6).
• We are dead in our trespasses and sins (Eph 2:1).
• We are by nature children of wrath (Eph 2:3).
• We cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor 2:14).

In fact he wouldn't have called us to do it.

Apparently, there are none who seek after God (Rom 3:10-12), and yet God tells us to seek Him (Psalm 105:4). Huh? God works in us to do the seeking. Like I said, God has a high view of Himself and His own ability to work in clay pots glorious wonders (like repentance from sin and faith in Christ).

Thinking only on our sin leads to self hate and shame, feeling that I can say from experience lead to anything but God. Has not sin been defeated by Christ? We focus on "…whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things." Philippians 4:8 (ESV) not on our sin but on God's grace.

If we never think about how utterly wretched we are, we will never appreciate God's grace the way it was meant to be appreciated. It is a true, honorable, just, pure, lovely, commendable, excellent thing to ponder your sin in light of God's holiness. This should drive you to be all the more amazed at and appreciative of God's grace. The problem is people never think about their sin at all, so God's grace (which is all they think about) doesn't end up being all that spectacular. We need balance, not lopsidedness.

5. Rob Bell treats temporal issues as more important than eternal ones. Who needs the gospel more, the unsaved or the saved? The saved have received it, believed it and now try to live it.

So once you're saved, you don't need the gospel?

The unsaved need to hear and believe. It is why Christ hasn't come back yet. The main benefits do come to those who believe it is true,

Then where is the disagreement? Rob Bell said that the gospel is a benefit for those who don't believe because they are the ones who get the awesome neighbors, not because they can believe it and be saved.

but who needs it more?

This question is really confusing to me, to be honest. Everyone needs the gospel! Just because you've taken advantage of it doesn't mean you no longer need it just as much as the unbeliever.

I would say the unbelieving. Saying that the unsaved need the good news, that it is especially good for them isn't an eternal perspective?

I suggest you go back and read the chapter a little more carefully. Rob Bell is not talking about non-Christians getting saved. He's talking about non-Christians getting nicer neighbors.

If giving the good news, showing it isn't for those who need Christ so that they might receive it isn't eternal than what is?

I didn't say anything of the sort! Of course the gospel is for those who don't believe! However, the main benefits of the gospel come to those who DO believe it. Those who don't believe it receive happy things only in this life and not in the next.

Secondly we do need to be pillars of truth it is true all the verses you quoted are obviously true. But if we look to Christ we see him being a pillar of truth in what? In peoples homes, at parties, Christ entered into the worlds medium without compromising his truth. Why can't we?

I never said we couldn't. I didn't say "don't go to parties." I said that the church does not need to learn how to throw better parties before it has something worthwhile to share with the world. Rob Bell says otherwise.

Yes it's tough to deal with persecution, yes we need to deal with persecution. But we see in scripture not rage, not ignoring the ways in which the world lives but attempting to show God through them. Like Paul in Athens, we stand in the ways of the world without compromising what we believe and what we preach. Not wildly, ignorant of dangers, and not in inappropriate places but where we may be seen as a light in the Darkness.

I think that "showing the love of God" and "the gospel" are two different things. The gospel is the death burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins. This is not culturally determined, and does not need to change with culture. The expression of it does not need to change with culture. The fact is that humans have broken God's law, and therefore they are condemned. But God offers a cancellation of their debt to those who will repent and put their trust in Jesus Christ, who died and paid the fine. How is this not clear? What about this needs to be changed? In order to be understood by culture, nothing needs to be changed. Yet I rarely hear this message. In fact, Rob Bell himself denigrates it.

My Closing Remarks
Evan's criticism of the book Velvet Elvis was biblically based and well presented.

Now I'm really confused! If it was "biblically based and well presented" then why did you take so much exception to it?

He portrays this book, as he perceives it, as unedifying and unworthy of effort to understand.

Incorrect. It is not unworthy of effort to understand. The danger is when you understand it correctly and take it seriously. To be honest, I don't think you really grasped the gravity of what he was saying, but I suppose I could be wrong on that one…

In all honesty after recommending this book to Evan, I realized that it would not be a book he would like.

Got that right… ^_^

I would like to agree with Evan on one thing though. This book is dangerous, it is dangerous in the sense that it makes us decide what is most important to us. It is dangerous because it makes us think and challenge, it is dangerous because if it were not it would not be worth reading.

Well then we actually don't agree (on this point) because that's not how I used the word 'dangerous.'

I would challenge this. Don't take what I am telling you at face value, and for that matter don't take what Evan is telling you at face value.

I think you means don't just accept uncritically what we have to say. I think this is a good example of what I mean by imprecise language. To take what someone is telling you "at face value" means to not read anything in to what they said. However, from the context, it was fairly clear what you meant.

Read the book for yourself and decide.

Yea… sorry bro, but I have to stick to my original recommendation. There are plenty of other books out there that are infinitely clearer and more edifying than this one (ok, well maybe not infinitely, but you get the idea). Don't waste your money on it.

We are just men flawed, unrighteous, imperfect. We don't have all the answers and these articles do not say all there is to be said of Velvet Elvis or Rob Bell.

They certainly don't!

It was good hearing from you, David. I'm sorry we disagree about this. I suspect a lot of it might be talking past each other, but perhaps it would be more worthwhile to go into Rob Bell's theology in general, rather than just this book. You often refer to personal knowledge about his theology that I can't argue with. Perhaps we can continue the conversation? (How's that for trying to be relevant! I'm even using emergent language!)