California Christian Apologetics Conference (I)

For the first group session on Friday night we heard from Sean McDowell. Sean is the head of the Bible department at Capastrano Valley Christian high and has two master’s degrees from Talbot. I remember him as the really smart guy who won’t talk over your head like the other really smart guys! Josh McDowell is his father, for those who are wondering.

The title of his talk was Truth or Tragedy, in which he sought to show us why truth is important, because truth itself is under attack in our culture. Not just true statements, but the idea that we can have knowledge. His opening verse was 2 Thess 2:8-10: “and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved.” Clearly truth is important; salvation depends on it! From another angle, he pointed out that when people even ask the question “Why does truth matter? What’s the big deal?” They are looking for an answer. That is why Sean responds “Do you want the true answer or the false one?” Even asking about the truth assumes the value of truth!

For his main arguments, he pointed out three reasons that truth is important.

First, Truth has consequences. For example (and this hit home with me), if you show up late for a midterm, there are consequences. It doesn’t matter how sincere you were in thinking that it was today rather than yesterday, because you missed it! Sean also pointed out that “know” or “knowledge” is mentioned far more in the Bible than “faith.” He again underscored the importance of this by directing us to Hosea 4:6: “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.”

Second, Truth is a compass for life. To illustrate the “compass” aspect of these, we were instructed to close our eyes and point North. Naturally, we had people pointing every which direction, and once again, sincerity makes no difference, because we could have 2 equally sincere people pointing completely opposite directions. I had no idea which way to point, so I just pointed straight up. He saw this and announced to the whole sanctuary that North is NOT straight up!

He then told us a few hilarious computer stories that I just have to tell you. He had an installation guy at his house to help him set up and he asked him what the 3 strangest questions were that he’d ever gotten calls about. “I got my computer all set up, but the foot pedal doesn’t work!” Apparently the woman had been stomping the mouse to death… “My cup holder is not big enough to fit my mug! Can I get a bigger computer?” That’s right; the dude was trying to store his coffee in the CD-ROM Drive!!

And last but not least… “The computer told me to close all the windows so I did, but it won’t let me continue; can you fix it?” She closed all the windows in her house!

The problem here was that the people were using the computer parts totally wrong! They didn’t know the truth about the purpose for each piece. Every part of life has a true purpose to it. This is why, Sean says, “the truth will set you free;” because once we know how everything is supposed to work, we are able to live rightly and fully! Sort of like when you use your CD-ROM drive for CD’s rather than coffee. You could get along with using your CD drive for a coffee holder, but why not use your computer to its full potential and use the drive for what it was meant for?

The third reason Sean gave truth being important is because simply believing in something is not enough. He told a story that I’ve heard from his dad before about a time that he asked a few students why they think the Bible is true. The answer he ended up getting was “It’s true because I believe it.” Upon asking this student whether the Koran is true for the Muslim who believes it, the student answered “yes!” Naturally the whole room was in shock. How can the top Christian students be saying that the Koran is true??? That, he noted, is the state of evangelicalism today. “The difference between you and me,” Josh remarked, “is that you think the Bible is true because you believe it. I believe the Bible because it is true!” That is where the power lies. It is not controlled by us in some mystical fashion, as if we formed our own reality in our minds based on what we believed and what we deny, as if Christ is risen when we believe Him risen and not risen when we deny His resurrection. No, as Sean said, “reality is disgustingly indifferent to what we believe about it.”

In order to move on, Sean decided to define what truth actually means. What are we saying when we claim that something is true? The definition he gave was the Corrsepondence theory of truth, which basically says that a statement or proposition is true if it matches up with reality. Truth is simply telling it like it is. Truth is a relationship between ideal or statement and reality itself. This is nothing new of course. We think of truth this way all the time in our daily lives. The rub comes when we enter the realms of morality and religion. Then people starting pulling fast ones with the definition of truth!

Ultimately, there are two types of truth. There is subjective truth which is personal, private, and changeable. For example, what is the best flavor of ice cream? This is a personal question to which there is no right answer, only your answer. The question as it is happens to be unanswerable. Its intended meaning is, which flavor of ice cream do you like most? So there is “subjective truth.” Then there is “objective truth.” Objective truths are facts of the external world that we discover, such as the fact that insulin controls diabetes.

Next he threw up some slides of statements, both controversial and otherwise. He warned us that he was asking whether or not the statements were true or false, but just that he wanted to know which kind of truth they were addressing. What kind of claim or statement were they? The statements ranged from “Lee Strobel can bench press 250 lbs.” to “Abortion is wrong.” It was a good exercise to make sure that people understood this dichotomy between subjective and objective truth, which Sean codenamed ice cream and insulin respectively.

Sean then challenged us with a question: “What if all morality was like ice cream?” If this were the case, you would have to right to judge anyone else. Or rather, if you did choose to judge someone, it would be totally meaningless, and have no authority over the person you're judging. However, we know morality isn’t like ice cream, and we know each and every person has a moral code within them. We know this not by their statements or actions, but by their reactions, by how they want to be treated. People might say they don't believe in objective morality, but don’t believe them!

At this point Sean moved to what I believe is the heart of the issue. Nobody dies and spends an eternity separated from God in hell simply for not believing in Jesus. People die and spend eternity in hell because they have a sickness called sin. To say that Buddha Krishna or Mohammed can forgive my sins, is like saying chocolate peanut butter ice cream controls diabetes. Christianity makes claims about reality that are objective. The question is: “Will we accept it or will we reject it?” Paul said in 1 Cor 15:17: "If Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins."

Now, as is typical with philosophy papers, he had to address certain objections to his thesis that truth is knowable and important. Some will tout, "There is no truth!" But this is a self-refuting statement. Is the statement true or false? Well… the only option is false, because it can’t be true. If it were true, it would be false… the statement is about paper thin. It’s like saying "I cannot say a single word in English" or "Meet my brother, an only child" or when Winnie the Pooh says "Nobody's home!"

The next one was my personal favorite. A student walked up to her philosophy teacher and asked him "How do I know I exist?" To this the philosophy teacher responded "Whom may I say is inquiring?" Brilliant! Of course, you can’t question your own existence if you don’t exist. Things that don’t exist can’t perform any actions.

Another objection is: "But doesn't truth change? After all, it used to be true to people that the earth was flat!” At this point you would be completely dumbfounded should you be on the receiving end of this statement. It used to be true that the earth was flat? Really? Of course not! The world has always been round! Beliefs change, but objective truths don't.

There were many more such examples that he gave us, which I won’t cover here, but one point he did make before moving on was that having the truth can make us arrogant. Rather than puffing us up, it should humble us.

One of his last points I thought was very accurate, and I’ll make it my last point as well. If Jesus were walking around here physically today, it would not take 3 years to crucify Him. He loved people, but He unequivocally stood up for the truth. “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but through me” – John 14:6

Truth Matters!

On Hate

This was a question presented to me by my friend based on concerns about some of the verses we had been memorizing. The latter part is my response. I hope this helps anyone struggling with these verses. If you have anything to add (or correct!) please do.

So, I have some questions.

How do these verses make sense together?

“I have nothing but hatred for them; I count them my enemies.” Psalm 139:22

“You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” Matthew 5:43-44

Are we supposed to love and hate them at the same time? They seem to contradict, but how is that possible? I don’t get it. I know we kind of already talked about this, but it just doesn’t make sense.

I’ve got a quote from John Piper that may or may not help. This quote is from an article that is rather philosophical in its language, but let’s see if it makes sense to you:

“God's emotional life is infinitely complex beyond our ability to fully comprehend. For example, who can comprehend that the Lord hears in one moment of time the prayers of ten million Christians around the world, and sympathizes with each one personally and individually like a caring Father (as Hebrews 4:15 says he will), even though among those ten million prayers some are broken-hearted and some are bursting with joy? How can God weep with those who weep and rejoice with those who rejoice when they are both coming to him at the same time—in fact are always coming to him with no break at all?

Or who can comprehend that God is angry at the sin of the world every day (Psalm 7:11), and yet every day, every moment, he is rejoicing with tremendous joy because somewhere in the world a sinner is repenting (Luke 15:7,10,23)? Who can comprehend that God continually burns with hot anger at the rebellion of the wicked, grieves over the unholy speech of his people (Ephesians 4:29-30), yet takes pleasure in them daily (Psalm 149:4), and ceaselessly makes merry over penitent prodigals who come home?”

How does this relate to our discussion? Well… the point is that God is far more complex than we can imagine. We think of being in certain moods at certain times, but it seems that just from the way things go on earth put together with what has been revealed in Scripture, it is the case that God is in every mood all the time! That’s mind boggling! As Piper points out, God “grieves over the unholy speech of His people” yet “takes pleasure in them daily.” This is even more confusing than loving something you hate. Take pleasure in someone who grieves you? Our God is an awesome God!

We should not think that God has a schizophrenic nature. He has a perfect nature. He has the ability to consistently and totally feel the right way all the time!

And what are we supposed to do with this? The best I can come up with is that we are indeed to feel two seemingly opposing ways toward the wicked. We hate them. What does that mean? It means we count them our enemies (Psalm 139:22). What do we do with our enemies? We love them (Matthew 5:43-44). What does that mean? We seek their best. We pray for them, etc. We do NOT take revenge into our own hands! Remember David says “O that You would slay the wicked, O God” (v. 19). And the Lord says, “Vengeance is mine” (Rom 12:19). Furthermore, David wants the wicked to leave him, not be around him, not affect him in a spiritually negative way. So we are not going to be spending time with the lost in such a way that we approve of what they do (Psalm 50:16-18), because doing so will affect our character toward something God hates (1 Cor 15:33).

Search Me, O God

Psalm 139 is one of those chapters that I've always known about but never really studied. I've been making an attempt at memorizing it lately, but alas, I have been lazy about the last 8 verses or so.... and I'm due to be done tomorrow! Well, I think I'll get it done, but first I needed to mention something that a good friend of mine and I realized as we were memorizing these verses. The most commonly quoted verse out of this chapter is probably verse 14 which says:

"I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works. My soul knows it very well."

This is a great verse (of course in the end they all are). It speaks to the majesty of God. It speaks of our proper response in seeing the grandeur of His creation: praise. We should not think highly of ourselves when we realize the intricacy with which God designed us (vv. 13,15). Instead, we think highly of Him and of His works. David is humbled by the facts he is reciting on the paper rather than puffed up.

And I've missed this fact for a long time.

Before, the verse used to make me feel quite nice. As if God had made me special and that he focused so much on me because I was so valuable to Him and He loved me so much. Yet David mentions emotions that don't seem to go along with this picture: "fearfully" made? What is so fearful about my composition? It is the fact that once David realized how intimately acquainted God was with every facet of his life, he realized not only God's power, but God's exhaustive knowledge of every inch of his being.

He realized God had access to his thought life (v.2). He realized God had knowledge of his daily routine (vv.2-3). Some of these things America attributes to Santa Claus at Christmas time ("sees you when you're sleeping", "knows when you're awake"), but how often does one hear about how much God sees into our lives? Are we willing to admit that God is keeping a list that He doesn't have to check twice because He's so perfectly holy and can't miss a single sin? When we are truly acquainted with our sinfulness as David was (Ps 51:3), we begin to understand why he asks questions like

"Where shall I go from your Spirit, or where shall I flee from Your presence?" (7)

David at this time is not exactly taking comfort in the fact that God knows every minute detail about his life. God's omnipresent, omniscient power is overwhelming and David feels like he needs an escape hatch. But there is nowhere to go. David is trapped. And in fact, it is the Lord who is trapping him:

"You hem me in, behind and before, and lay your hand upon me." (5)

The Lord does not let David go from His grasp. I am thankful that the Lord caught me, trapped me, and did not let me go. I would have been long gone now were it not for the grace afforded me. With all the talk about light and dark, it seems clear that God is the one who exposes, and David (men) is the one who conceals by nature. However, David does well by the end of the Psalm to plead with God to search him and reveal any "grievous way" (24). Upon realization of the truth that God sees and knows all, David has responded to the exposure of his own sin not by passively accepting it, but actively pursuing it.

How many times do you actively pursue the exposure of your own sin? I know that for me it is certainly not an exciting proposition to find out how big of a failure I am. Nevertheless, the more one pursues the light of God to shine into their lives, the more they grow. In fact I just experienced this recently, when another good friend called and apologized for wrongs committed some time ago. The relationship was not damaged further, it was healed! God is eager to forgive. Confession of sin can only mend the relationship (1 John 1:9) and never harm it, since God already knows what you've done! As the Word says:

"A broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise" (Ps 51:17).

God is not looking to browbeat His children. He may chastise them, as a loving father should, but the goal is never humiliation with one of His own. It is restoration. Confession of and destruction of sin are too healthy to be neglected. If you're having trouble finding some (arrogant as that may seem, it happens. Then you realize later how arrogant it was...), pray to the Lord and ask Him to search you and show you your sinfulness. Then you can proceed with putting it to death.

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.

*If you think I have misinterpreted Rob Bell and/or the Bible in any way, let me know by leaving a comment. Do not hold a grudge and gossip. Don’t be afraid to leave your name. Posting anonymously just makes the poster look like a coward. I respect boldness, even if I think s/he’s wrong. If you don’t think I misinterpreted anything, you can leave a comment too!

**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.

Book Review: Velvet Elvis (Part I)

Rob Bell's first book Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith has become quite a popular read in various Christian circles. So popular, in fact, that I thought I'd take time to read this Emergent pastor's book and see what he has to say that's grabbing people's attention so vigorously. Quite honestly, it was difficult to find reasons why I personally should be attracted to this man's writing, though I can spy a few reasons why others might be more inclined to read him.

Peeves

Let me just talk for a few moments about some of the things I personally wasn't attracted to, but that others might find appealing. Keep in mind that I currently have no theological basis for not liking these aspects of Bell’s writing. This is simply preference.

1. He has quite a way with catchy titles, and the shock value helps to sell his product I’m sure. When discussing his second book (Sex God) with a fellow camp counselor, I commented that I thought the title was on the irreverent side, but this counselor disagreed and thought it was "brilliant" because of the marketing value. Non-Christians are more likely to pick up a book titled Sex God by a Christian pastor than they are one titled The Forgotten Trinity, for example. At least that's how the reasoning goes. This title is intriguing (What does Elvis have to do with Christianity, much less a Velvet one?), but it's the subtitle that gets under my skin: Repainting the Christian Faith. He explains it a bit in the introduction, but his analogy is quite lost on me. Repainting Christianity is like repainting the Mona Lisa. All you get out of the deal is a fake (or a different painting altogether...). But perhaps you're like my counselor friend and think highly of shocking labels.

2. He doesn't put Bible references in the text. Instead he leaves them for the endnotes section. Honestly I think to weave Biblical citations into the text a) saves paper, b) saves time, and c) won't offend anyone who has already picked up the book. There's nothing in the Bible that says "thou shalt cite thy verses," I just appreciate when I can spend my time flipping through the Bible rather than flipping to the back to read something that isn't any longer than my name. But perhaps you appreciate the unbroken read the provides for, should you desire it.

3. He cannot seem to figure out how much Biblical knowledge to assume, and such implies that he is confused as to who his audience is, or that he is writing to such a wide one that many readers (i.e. Yours truly) are left confused. At various points he speaks of New Testament authors as "the author of (insert book here)" or “one writer;” elsewhere he simply uses their name with no introduction whatsoever. I enjoy consistency, that's all I'm saying. But perhaps you appreciate that he is attempting to reach out to a larger (and 'unchurched') crowd.

4. The last peeve I thought I’d mention was Bell's tendency to exaggerate history. The example that stands out to me the most is when he is comparing quotes about Caesar and quotes about Jesus. He claims that one of the early Christians’ favorite phrases was "there is no other name given under heaven by which we must be saved than that of Jesus" (Acts 4:12). This phrase is used a total of 1 time in the entire New Testament. Are there outside sources that I don't know about? For some, the idea that this once quoted phrase was a favorite may be a reasonable assumption that makes history exciting (a rare thing in itself). For me, a peeve.