Sunday, December 21, 2008

ok, so here's an article about everyone favorite Liberal Christians', Rob Bell, book, Velvet Elvis.... tell me what you think...http://www.irishcalvinist.com/?p=1283
Posted by at

3 comments:

Reggie Smith said...

Hey guys. I'm sitting in my house in Conway right now, feeling healthy for the first time in three days after fighting off some demon of a stomach virus. So I figured as I'm completing the last stages of recovery, I'd take some time to respond to a couple of the newest posts on our blog.

I haven't read Velvet Elvis and I haven't listened to any Bell sermons for the last year or two so I might be totally off-base with some of my conclusions. Also, I tend to side with Christians who make other Christians angry.

I'm going to try to go through each of the reviewer's points and offer and thought or two. I might run out of steam halfway through or earlier, but here goes:

Rob Bell makes me mad because:

-'he preaches and anti-gospel': I agree that there is certainly a tilt towards preaching a gospel of "living the Jesus life" in a lot of churches like Mars Hill, but viewed a certain way, that's not all that bad. Sure, if you're telling people that the most important thing is living by the rules to achieve salvation instead of relying on God's grace, then we've got problems. But, a lot of times it seems like guys like Bell aren't saying that you've got to live the Jesus life to achieve salvation; they're just saying "Look, God's grace is some powerful stuff, so instead of spending all of your time worrying about whether or not you and everyone else believe all the right things, let's try to live our lives in the reality of God's grace and take the problems with our theology as they arise in our practice."

-'he writes off the virgin birth as non-essential': I don't have enough training to thoroughly evaluate this. I would, however, say that it seems to me that the NT writers' use of the OT text isn't necessarily a pure interpretation. In other words, I don't think that the NT writers were always exegeting the 'deeper meaning' to the OT text. Rather, I think that many times they were offering a 'fuller meaning' to the text a reading it in a Christotelic way.
For an example of what I mean, see Matthew 2.13's use of Hosea 11.1. If you're going to say that Mattew was just interpreting what Hosea actually meant in that verse, you're going to run into some trouble when you get to 11.2. Also, read this interesting post on the subject by one of my friends at WTS: http://animalfarmblog.com/2008/10/27/ok-if-not-this-then-what/.
All of that to say, I think that we should at least strongly consider what exactly was being said in the NT when Matthew says he was born of a virgin in light of Isaiah. And we should consider the fact that as 'essential' as we make it out to be, only Luke and Matthew mention it at all.

-'he downplays the role of conversion': If Rob Bell does do this then I can only think of two reasons. One, he might just be responding to the overemphasis of 'right-belief' to the detriment of 'right-practice' that is prevelant in a lot of churches. Two, he just doesn't think it's that important b/c of some wrong interpretation of New Perspective on Paul thinking. Either way, I think that the importance of conversion (which I think of as the realization that this God you've heard about and learned about is actually alive and real) can never be downplayed. It's like the difference between the scientists in Jurassic Park studying dinosaur bones and then seeing a dinosaur that's actually alive. They studied them their entire lives, but everything changes when you're confronted with a real live dinosaur.

-'he does violence to the clear words of Jesus': Since I haven't read the book and he doesn't really give any examples, I really can't comment on this point except to say that I've heard this about Bell before from people who I trust to not misrepresent him.

-'he is the pastor of Mars Hill Bible Church': The reviewer says he thinks it's deceptive for Bell to be the pastor of a church that calls itself a Bible Church. I think that's kind of a low-blow. One thing I've realized since being at seminary is that a lot of the people who we now consider heretics in church history and today love Jesus a lot and think that they're doing justice to the Bible and giving God glory. For example, Karl Barth was demonized in a lot of my classes as a liberal who didn't believe that Scripture was important, but when I actually started reading his stuff I realized that he had great regard for God, the gospel, and Scripture. Higher regard, I think, than many evangelicals today. But since he believed things that don't jive with conservative evangelicalism, people think he must have some ulterior and sinister motive. Obviously good motives don't forgive bad scholarship, but in this point, the reviewer seems to be questioning Bell's motives. I'm pretty sure Rob Bell loves God and is thankful for Jesus. And I'm pretty sure he didn't call his church a 'Bible Church' just to trick naive evangelicals into coming into his cult.

Finally, the reviewer's concluding points:

-A New Dress: Machen probably would have some strong words for Bell. Like most of the reformed evangelicals around at the time, Machen was angry at anyone who didn't agree with him. Bell has some weak points, I'm sure, but to say that he's starting a new religion is off-base, I think.

-Causes: The reviewer says that the book has been accepted so widely because of an ignorance of church history and the Bible. As I've studied the Bible this semester and really started to get into the issues a little bit more, I've started to gain a greater respect and graciousness towards those with whom I disagree. There is certainly a lot of ignorance in the church today, but even if we were to eliminate all of the 'uneducated' people from the conversation (and even if we eliminated people who are obviously doing scholarship out of pride or sinful motivations instead of for the glory of God), we would still have a variety of voices and positions represented.

I'm glad I read this review. I think he wrote well and he offered some good insights. Thanks for the link Joel.

What do the rest of y'all think about the article or what I wrote?

December 21, 2008 at 11:55 AM
James said...

I actually have read Velvet Elvis (maybe I borrowed it from Dave?), although it was some time ago. Reg brings up a lot of good points, and I think the sides break down to whether or not you think Rob Bell is demon-possessed and working to further dismantle God's Faithful People.

The one thing I come away with when I read writing like this review (and the articles linked off of the review's page) is the stunning lack of fear, trembling, and humility before the reality of Truth it takes to write with so much zealous swagger. When I remember that even the apostles disagreed about theology at times, it really makes me want to shut the [place] up and think about how I am just one dude who's as damned as everybody else here when left to his own devices.

I think homosexuality is a difficult issue for the church, and I don't hear any voices putting (what as far as I know is) the truth out there for people to hear. The answer seems pretty obvious to me, but it isn't the first time the Church has allowed itself to be pulled off track by reacting to the culture around it.

December 22, 2008 at 7:09 AM
James said...

That homosexuality reference comes from further reading off of the main page. It just comes out of nowhere so I thought I'd give it some context.

December 22, 2008 at 7:11 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)