Velvet Elvis or Mona Lisa?
Rob Bell in his book “Velvet Elvis” compares the Christian Faith to a velvet Elvis painting also know as a "Velvis". In essence, what Rob Bell is saying is that the Christian Faith as we know it today is culturally irrelevant, boring, and inflexible. Rob suggests that we need to repaint what it means to be Christian and if we don’t, the Christian faith will be relegated to a storage box in the basement much like a velvet Elvis painting.
On page 12 of Bell's book he writes the following words "I embrace the need to keep painting, to keep reforming. By this I do not mean cosmetic, superficial changes like lights and music, sharper graphics, and new methods with easy to follow steps. I mean theology: the beliefs about God, Jesus, the Bible, salvation, the future. We must keep reforming the way the Christian faith is defined, lived, and explained... and if this difficult work isn't done, where does the painting end up? In the basement."
In this book, Rob brings into question every major theological idea of the church from the virgin birth, to creation, to heaven and hell, even salvation. While he does not directly come out against any of these theological positions he does openly question them. To his credit he does state several times that he personally believes in the orthodox doctrines of the Church but he also states that Christianity is not about what we believe but what we experience. On page 35 Rob sums up his theology "The point is our Joy" Rob Bell says Christianity is all about our own personal experience. Like most of the emergent church movement their faith is not about what they believe but what we feel. The Bible then takes on a completely different role in their faith. Rob makes statements like "sometimes when I hear people quote the Bible, I just want to throw up!" or the "Is the Bible the best God can do?"
Rob Bell has some good thoughts. He pushes back hard on some of the religious dogma that has plagued the church, but in my opinion this book may actually cross the line into heresy. I think as Christians we need to read books that stretch us and make think about what we believe and why we believe it; in the end I found this book to be an offense to the Christian faith. Rob Bell compares the Christian faith and the doctrines of our faith to a cheap trendy Velvis and unneeded springs on a trampoline (I didn’t get that illustration at all, since a trampoline is useless without the springs).
Personally, I think a better painting to compare the Christian faith to might be the Mona Lisa which is over 500 years old and worth around $600,000,000. You don't find the Mona Lisa in your basement but in $7,500,000 vault which is climate controlled and guarded day and night. No one would ever consider repainting the Mona Lisa. A touch up and restoration maybe, but never a total repainting of the original canvas with a different picture. The doctrines of the Church and our faith are not some dime store painting of Elvis but a masterpiece painted by God. We must guard them, protect them, and touch them up from time to time as the years degrade the picture God painted but we must never repaint them as Rob Bell suggest.
Pastor Steve
5 Comments
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (5)
Reading through the blogs, I wondered why others have not commented. Of course these blogs could be new and I'm the first to respond. But then I think, should I put myself "out there" for others to see some parts of who I am and put myself in a position of being judged? I wonder how many folks don't respond in fear. This brings me to my thoughts.
Maybe Bell's book has some truths to it or at least touches upon questions, and possibly dogmas, of my own. Coming back to church for me was difficult as I too thought it was "culturally irrelevant, boring and inflexible". I've always had questions, lots of them, when trying to reconcile my beliefs with what I would see when attending church. Even Pastor Steve has made statements that "if you don't believe this way, you are not going to heaven" (not word for word) but this makes me uncomfortable and doesn't sound very flexible. (not picking on you Pastor Steve). But why must believing in Jesus be so difficult? I know my sins, whether I want to admit them or not, but I also know Jesus loves me and forgives me if and when I ask for forgiveness. I know the jouney of living is difficult, marked with hardships and joy, but believing should not be hard. And it is for me and all because I just can't stop questioning.
Bell states, "it's not about what we believe but what we feel". I disagree with Pastor Steve. It is about what we feel. How can you separate the two? I feel dispair, I go to Jesus...I feel pain, I go to Jesus...I feel fear...I go to Jesus...I feel joy...I go to Jesus....all because I believe. Most people come to God because of some sort of "feeling" or "event" they've gone through.
Again, I question, constantly. Are these questions my dogmas? Which bible to read? Or as Bell says, "Is the Bible the best God can do?" It's written by men, interpreted by men and it's been questioned as to why some of it is missing. Don't get me wrong. I do believe the bible was written by men who were inspired by God but we are getting "their" interpretation of events in their time that we now can relate to. That in itself is reason to believe...that this book should still be this inspirational for this long. However, it still makes me question, again!
I have a sister who is a strong Christian, doesn't miss a Sunday of church, is very active with her groups and others, and is a very loving and caring person. When I express my feelings about the hipocracy I feel about going to church, she states: "Linda, if only those without sin went to church, it would be empty. Try not to judge those who you fear are judging you." So I end for now with yet another question...when am I going to finally get that?
AMEN!!
Our Christian Faith HAS to be based on our beliefs. If I lived out my faith only when I felt like it. My life would be a disaster. What God desires is for us to know what we believe with all are heart and to back up our beliefs with obedience!!
I am in the middle of reading Rob Bell's book and happened upon your blog while searching for some info on him.
Admittedly, I am in the middle of the book, so I can't speak authoritatively at all about the book as a whole.
From what I've read, however, I have to disagree wholeheartedly with your critiques. The quotes you give are out of context and misleading.
For example, the quote "Is the Bible the best God can do?" comes after a section discussing the phenomenon of single verses of the Bible meaning such different thing to different people, and the fact that so many verses have been used to justify horrible things. So, Rob asks the question in this context, wondering how such confusion could possibly be a good thing.
He then spends quite a while discussing the great wrestling (the "binding and loosing" that we as humans must do with the text to come to our own understanding of the text. The Bible has to be interpreted, so it necessarily engages us in the kind of wrestling with the text that keeps us actively engaged in pursuing our faith and living it out in the world.
So, when Bell asks this question, it is not a flippant derogatory comment, but rather an intro to a section of his book that answers the question with a resounding YES- the Bible is the best God can do, because the confusion that it often causes is what forces us to wrestle with it, and actively engage our intellect and faith.
Ellie
Thanks for your post!
How would you respond to Rob Bell's comments on Pages 66-68?
"The writers of the Bible had agendas"
"This is part of the problem with continually insisting that one of the absolutes of the Christian faith must be a belief that 'Scripture alone' is our guide. It sounds nice, but it is not true."
"When people say that all we need is the Bible, it is simply not true"
If Rob Bell is saying we need God or more specifically the Holy Spirit to help us understand the Bible, I would agree. I also would agree with Rob that Scripture must be used in context. But, the whole premise of “Velvet Elvis” is that we must continue to change the basic doctrine of our faith in order for the Church to stay relevant. So in that context I cannot agree with Rob Bell.
Rob states his purpose for writing this book on page 12.
"I embrace the need to keep painting, to keep reforming. By this I do not mean cosmetic, superficial changes like lights and music, sharper graphics, and new methods with easy to follow steps. I mean theology: the beliefs about God, Jesus, the Bible, salvation, the future. We must keep reforming the way the Christian faith is defined, lived, and explained... and if this difficult work isn't done, where does the painting end up? In the basement."
Unlike Rob, I do believe that if we throw out the “Virgin Birth” or the “Trinity” then Christianity does not make sense… I don’t believe our theology and the doctrines of the church are cheap trendy paintings that go out of style. As the Apostle Paul said to those who were trying to explain away the resurrection, if there is no resurrection from the dead we are to be pitied above all men. Paul also warned Timothy to watch his life and doctrine closely. In doing so he would save himself and his hearers… Our life must match our doctrine and our doctrine must line up with Scripture.
I have not read the book nor do I know much about Rob Bell except that he made some video presentations that were apparently liked by many people. But maybe I can still legitimately comment on a couple things.
It seems that Rob's choice of metaphors is unfortunate for his own agenda. All changes to a painting will necessarily be superficial, right? And then, a call to change in the light of culture seems destined to the obsolescence he is decrying. Perhaps a longer term perspective is needed?
The other thing I'm not sure about is that calls for redefining theology, to me, ought to come from people who have demonstrated theological depth and acumen. Rob has an MDiv from Fuller (says wikipedia) and that is getting there, but not quite. I'm more interested in what someone like Roger Olson (Reformed and always reforming, How to be Evangelical without being conservative) or the late Stan Grenz (Reinvisioning Evangelical Theology) have to say about reforming theology. Sure, Rob has a right to have his say. But I hope no one accepts his agenda for theology without consulting people of greater learning. In my studies I have found that the more one learns about theology the more one gets the importance of various doctrines. A superficial understanding can often lead to easy dismissals. For example, one of the reasons for affirming the virgin birth is not just because "the Bible says so", but because it is tied to the incarnation and without incarnation ("Jesus is both man and God") you have big problems with a lot of things the Bible says. Maybe if you dismissed the virgin birth you could come up with another way of positing that Jesus was both human and divine, but then, why go to all that work when it’s all part of the package from the beginning?! It’s kind of like the liberal scholar who is said to have denied that Moses ever existed, but said there was a cousin of his who was very much like him and lived around the same time and did most of the things that are attributed to Moses. What’s the point of inventing something new that is worse than what you already have?
Just some thoughts to consider. Not having read the book I probably shouldn’t say anything at all. But there you have it.