Book Review: Velvet Elvis by Rob Bell
In 1999 Rob Bell launched his Mars Hill Bible Church in Grand Rapids, Michigan. The very first Sunday they had 1000 people show up. By the end of six months they had 4,000; within 2 years they had 10,000. Bell is also known for his rapidly-gaining-popularity series of “spiritual short films” called Nooma. His ministry is, needless to say, “successful”.
So when Bell opens his mouth, people—especially Christian leaders—should at least listen.
His first book, Velvet Elvis, is a general glimpse into the Christian philosophy that he is known for. Bell argues that the shift from modern to postmodern requires not just a revamping of the way church is done, but that a “repainting” of Christian theology is needed too. Of course, this is bound to piss people off. But unlike other “emergents”, Bell doesn’t seem to want to make a point by either pushing extremes or embracing ambiguity. I’d recommend this book to both the most extreme Emergent as well as the hardcore Reformed thinker. It’s a challenge to both sides because Bell’s theology is unorthodox, but not liberal “wishy-washy”.
His justification for repainting the faith is based on a few ideas. First, he asserts the subjective nature of biblical interpretation. Bell argues that no matter how hard we try, we can’t be absolutely objective in interpreting the bible. We can adopt others’ interpretations, of course, but it’s an interpretation nonetheless. Bell humorously recounts the times people have made the comment “well, as long as you teach the bible you’re alright in my book.” They mean, as long as you teach their interpretation of the bible. Thus, Bell has problems with the idea of the absolute “infallibility” of the Scriptures. Say what you will, Bell’s assertion is not meant as an attack on the faith. His love for the Scriptures is blatantly stated throughout the book.
Second, he asserts that reinterpretation of the faith is something that God is not only OK with, but something He encourages. Citing the church in Acts, he argues that the Christian faith has been evolving since the very beginning, and there’s no reason why it shouldn’t continue to do so.
The most interesting aspect of Bell’s thinking—and the most convincing—is his insistence on reading the Greek Scriptures in the light of their Hebrew origins. In looking at both Jesus’ teaching and the epistles, he pulls out all sorts of nuances that I’d never heard before. For instance, he claims that Jesus’ first three miracles were purposely done in opposition to three Roman cults popular in Asia Minor, the area to which John wrote the Gospel. Dionysus was the god of wine and could turn water into wine—Jesus’ first miracle (John 2). Asclepius was the god of healing (his staff with the snakes wrapped around it is still a symbol of medicine), hence Jesus’ healing of the invalid (John 5). Demeter was the god of agriculture—bread—hence Jesus’ third miracle (John 6). If this isn’t true, then it’s a crazy coincidence (Jesus…coincidence…I don’t think so).
He also talks about Jesus’ trip to Caesarea Philippi. Caesarea Philippi was built on top of a huge cliff—a large rock if you will. On the side of the cliff on which the city was built there was a huge crevice, and near it was a temple to the Roman god Pan (the guy with goat legs and the flute), the god of fright. The crevice was thought to be the place where Pan’s terrors came into the world, and was known as the “Gates of Hell”. So when the Jesus and his disciples were in Caesarea Philippi and Jesus says “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it,” (Matthew 16:18 ESV) it takes on an entirely different meaning: “I’m going to build a community of believers up in that there town, and this Roman cult will not be able to stop me.” Interesting, to say the least.
Like it or not, Bell’s theology is rapidly gaining popularity. I’d advise anyone who wants to keep up on things to read this book. I would challenge anyone who wishes to converse with postmodern Christianity to read this book and try to keep an open mind. I found it both challenging and affirming. At the very least it will cause you to think and question, something that Bell himself encourages: “Test it. Probe it. Do that to this book. Don’t swallow it uncritically. Think about it. Wrestle with it. Just because I’m a Christian and I’m trying to articulate a Christian worldview doesn’t mean I’ve got it nailed. I’m contributing to the discussion. God has spoken, and the rest is commentary, right?”
So when Bell opens his mouth, people—especially Christian leaders—should at least listen.
His first book, Velvet Elvis, is a general glimpse into the Christian philosophy that he is known for. Bell argues that the shift from modern to postmodern requires not just a revamping of the way church is done, but that a “repainting” of Christian theology is needed too. Of course, this is bound to piss people off. But unlike other “emergents”, Bell doesn’t seem to want to make a point by either pushing extremes or embracing ambiguity. I’d recommend this book to both the most extreme Emergent as well as the hardcore Reformed thinker. It’s a challenge to both sides because Bell’s theology is unorthodox, but not liberal “wishy-washy”.
His justification for repainting the faith is based on a few ideas. First, he asserts the subjective nature of biblical interpretation. Bell argues that no matter how hard we try, we can’t be absolutely objective in interpreting the bible. We can adopt others’ interpretations, of course, but it’s an interpretation nonetheless. Bell humorously recounts the times people have made the comment “well, as long as you teach the bible you’re alright in my book.” They mean, as long as you teach their interpretation of the bible. Thus, Bell has problems with the idea of the absolute “infallibility” of the Scriptures. Say what you will, Bell’s assertion is not meant as an attack on the faith. His love for the Scriptures is blatantly stated throughout the book.
Second, he asserts that reinterpretation of the faith is something that God is not only OK with, but something He encourages. Citing the church in Acts, he argues that the Christian faith has been evolving since the very beginning, and there’s no reason why it shouldn’t continue to do so.
The most interesting aspect of Bell’s thinking—and the most convincing—is his insistence on reading the Greek Scriptures in the light of their Hebrew origins. In looking at both Jesus’ teaching and the epistles, he pulls out all sorts of nuances that I’d never heard before. For instance, he claims that Jesus’ first three miracles were purposely done in opposition to three Roman cults popular in Asia Minor, the area to which John wrote the Gospel. Dionysus was the god of wine and could turn water into wine—Jesus’ first miracle (John 2). Asclepius was the god of healing (his staff with the snakes wrapped around it is still a symbol of medicine), hence Jesus’ healing of the invalid (John 5). Demeter was the god of agriculture—bread—hence Jesus’ third miracle (John 6). If this isn’t true, then it’s a crazy coincidence (Jesus…coincidence…I don’t think so).
He also talks about Jesus’ trip to Caesarea Philippi. Caesarea Philippi was built on top of a huge cliff—a large rock if you will. On the side of the cliff on which the city was built there was a huge crevice, and near it was a temple to the Roman god Pan (the guy with goat legs and the flute), the god of fright. The crevice was thought to be the place where Pan’s terrors came into the world, and was known as the “Gates of Hell”. So when the Jesus and his disciples were in Caesarea Philippi and Jesus says “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it,” (Matthew 16:18 ESV) it takes on an entirely different meaning: “I’m going to build a community of believers up in that there town, and this Roman cult will not be able to stop me.” Interesting, to say the least.
Like it or not, Bell’s theology is rapidly gaining popularity. I’d advise anyone who wants to keep up on things to read this book. I would challenge anyone who wishes to converse with postmodern Christianity to read this book and try to keep an open mind. I found it both challenging and affirming. At the very least it will cause you to think and question, something that Bell himself encourages: “Test it. Probe it. Do that to this book. Don’t swallow it uncritically. Think about it. Wrestle with it. Just because I’m a Christian and I’m trying to articulate a Christian worldview doesn’t mean I’ve got it nailed. I’m contributing to the discussion. God has spoken, and the rest is commentary, right?”
posted by david t at 4:54 PM
3 Comments:
I like that last quote by Bell. Similiar to Acts 17:11...
ur mom's similar to acts 17:11
Interesting. I have heard the Caesarea Philippi anecdote before, as well as the very apt comparison/contrast between Jesus first miracles and contemporary mystery cults (or should I say, important occult motifs).
Demeter was a goddess, primarily associated with the GREEK Elysian mysteries.
Congrates on the site. I'll be sure to comment regularly. It is quid pro quo, however.
Post a Comment
<< Home