Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith

Location: Home » body art - tattoo » Christianity » Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith

Similar Items:

•	Sex God: Exploring the Endless Connections between Sexuality and Spirituality
•	Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith
•	Searching for God Knows What
•	The Irresistible Revolution: Living as an Ordinary Radical

Editorial Reviews:

Product Description
We know there’s something more. We sense it, we feel it, we know it. And we want it. We want an authentic spirituality.

Customer Reviews: Read 236 more reviews...

4 out of 5 stars

Passion without pushing September 5, 2005
231 out of 294 found this review helpful

Bell, Rob. Velvet Elvis. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005. 194 pages.

Velvet Elvis invites us to the pathos of the Christian faith. It reminds us that faith is about life, about redemption, about forgiveness. The book, if nothing else, is refreshing.

It is a story for people who are exhausted by their own efforts and want to be renewed by something beyond themselves. It is theologically merciful, meaning that the book asks next to nothing of us, while it relates to the fact that we've spent all we had getting to where we are. One more requirement would be too many, so Bell is nice to us.

It is the voice of the age. It is environmentalist, appealing to the systematically-college-educated, and tired of Boomers. It is spiritual and even Christian while decrying the preachy and inauthentic. Bell at one point asks us, "Are you smoking what you're selling?" You sense he could probably be more crass if he didn't have an editor and an audience.

The unique appeal of Rob Bell is his curiosity with first century Judaism and its effects on the New Testament letters. Despite the weakness that vastly different strands of Jewish thought are attributed to the anonymous, "ancient rabbis," he taps into the American fascination with "secrets" behind the Bible. The same urge that made us read the Da Vinci Code makes us listen to Rob Bell-he seems to know something that 2000 years of history have missed. He at one point overstates his point, saying that reading the Bible without a knowledge of the first century is "lethal," apparently a tragedy for those third world readers who don't have access to Bell's education. Nonetheless, we can't help but be engaged with his studies. This is his mysticism.

The weaknesses of the book all derive from this mysticism. Bell doesn't want to take too many stands, and seems unaware of the fact that the culture around him is going to require some definitive answers of him. He insists that any reading of the Bible is only an interpretation and not the objective truth. But he seems naive to the overused observation that you cannot make such definitive statements without depending on some kind of objective truth. Clearly he thinks he is objectively correct in saying so.

His core theology seems to consist of the epistemically unfounded doctrines: Jesus is cool, God is awesome, Jewish history is cool. It's not really clear why I should be interested in Jesus or believe the Bible to be anything more than complex myth-making. He cites the example of a woman in his congregation who had been practicing witchcraft but can't stop coming to his church. This is about as much credit as Bell gives us. We're assumed to be too stupid to ask the question, "So how do you know?" He even undermines himself here, showing how any rational person could believe that the virgin birth is a myth, and then arbitrarily affirms the doctrine. I don't think most of us will follow him down the path of blind theology. It's going to become even harder for him to stay where he is when we ask some simple, common questions like: "Can the pastor be gay? Is the church that refuses women pastors wrong?" etc.

His theology is pleasantly free from blame. He says that he can't find any place in the Bible where we are to identify ourselves first and foremost as sinners (though that in fact is the whole foundation of the book of Romans). Sin, generally, falls to the wayside in Bell's theology. Perhaps the most sad example of this (p 92) is Bell's willingness to do a wedding for people who don't want him to talk about God or Jesus but just make the wedding spiritual. One could analogize this to a doctor who is willing to forego medicine to make his patients more comfortable.

The high points of the book are two. First, there is a whole-hearted rejection of the boomer churches that gave Bell birth. He overturns the tables of the seeker-sensitive, numbers-oriented churches (p 99). And yet, he never seems to hold to his affirmations. He says he hates marketing for churches, and he hates numbers. Then he goes on to tell us how many people come to his church, and he hides the true marketing that got his church started. To read VE, it seems that Bell just started a church without telling anyone, and 1000 people came the first Sunday to find a staff already in place. He never mentions Ed Dobson's influence on him. Somehow I think he's not telling the whole story. It reads like the calling of the disciples, where Jesus just says, "Follow me," and they go. Nonetheless, the story concludes with Bell's own exhaustion and his exhortation that we kill the superwhatever that drives us to success. Bell says he had to take superpastor out back and kill it (p 116). May all readers cheer.

The second high point is that God's presence is so strong in creation that missionaries need only have better eyesight than others. Missionaries simply see God whether other people have missed him (p 88).

I have a feeling this book may sell the way Bell's church grew. Everyone knew him beforehand through his speaking engagements at Willow Creek and the National Youth Workers' Conventions, but in the end, he can say it just sold like crazy with no advertising. It's so mysterious, he will tell us.

5 out of 5 stars

AT THE CROSSROADS... January 10, 2006
84 out of 115 found this review helpful

Christianity is at a crossroads--internally and in how it deals with the "rest of the world." The world has moved on. One age is ending, a new one beginning to form.

A Church that has mistaken the customs and thought patterns of the dying age (Modernity: from the "enlightenment" till roughly now) as "absolute truth" (a very modern, scientific concept itself) must now either move bravely ahead as missionaries into the open fields before us (the postmodern world) or turn inward--making ever more sound and FURY that will ultimately signify nothing.

I speak from experience here. All around me, I see Christ-followers living out creative, God-honoring, relational, inspiring lives. Just as often, I see people in bondage to the ways of the past--viciously tearing people down over issues of as much relevance as how many angels could fit on the head of a pin, or--God forbid--a stupid book review.

It is time Christ-followers follow their Savior. Christ is the good news, not Christianity. Christ alone can save, not a set of beliefs that is open to interpretation (though beliefs are of importance, joining "The Story" is perhaps of more importance and consequence). Most of all, we are to be known by our love for each other--not by our hate filed "discussions" and "debates."

Rob Bell's Velvet Elvis lasers in on this Jesus that we follow. It casts off the thought patterns (sin) that cling so easily to our picture of God and the Church. It calls us higher up and deeper in.

This is not a new Christ, or a new Church. This is the savior that always has been and will be forever--now only seen slighty clearer--given time and the Holy Spirit's leading.

Let me end with a recommendation and two warnings:

I recommend this book as highly as I can. It has helped me to see more clearly and (through God's power) grow spiritually.

Warning 1--This book is one man's painting. Test it. Rely on God for your growth. Most of all, use your life to paint your own masterpiece.

Warning 2--If you open yourself up to God in this way, you will not remain unchanged. And, if you're at all like me, this is a very good thing :)

5 out of 5 stars

Thought-provoking start of a needed conversation December 20, 2005
64 out of 75 found this review helpful

First off, I am somewhere between a 4 and a 5 (call it 9 of 10) on Velvet Elvis, though my tilt moved it up to a 5.

From reading this book, I see that Rob is really trying to "jump-start" the conversation about what faith is and is not, and to help those of us in Gens Y&X - inheritors of the post-modern worldview which incubated in the 60's - see how the Jesus is just as relevant today as he was in His own time.

My favorite quote: Christian is a great noun but a poor adjective.Too often, the church of the previous generation has been too accepting of mediocrity in a plethora of areas because the label "Christian" has been slapped on the package (whether it's music, media, or day-to-day programs/initiatives).

While I do not agree with him on everything (I think he could have expanded on many of his ideas to give them clarity and to cut down on misunderstanding. Granted, from reading many of the other reviews, it seems some people deliberately misunderstand and take Mr. Bell's positions to illogical extremes), I believe that he is on the mark with what is required for the church to remain relevant and resonant with today's Western culture.

From reading VE, I don't think he was saying that the Bible isn't 100% true - I think he was suggesting that it is pretty arrogant of any one person to assume that they know what "100% true" is. Western thinkers, who see things in literal definitions and bullet points, have a difficult time reconciling this concept - particularly when it deals with a book (actually a collection of books) written primarily to an Eastern audience, whose world-view is shaped by experiential learning, based on what can be seen, heard and touched.

For example, Westerners look at Genesis and many will insist that the story of creation HAD TO BE a literal 7-day process. The contextual view stresses the importance of "God created..." with the rest being a story of how it came about - in an experiential manner. Do I think the world was created in 7 days or that it came about via a gradual process over billions of years? I don't know, but all that matters is that God created it, and the story we have about that creation can be interpreted many ways. So, if I am inclined to believe that God may have created the world in something other than 7 literal days, and you are inclined to believe it happened in 7 literal days, does that mean that one of us doesn't believe that the Bible is 100% true? From my reading of Rob's thesis, the answer is no. Now, if taken to extremes, I agree that his thesis can be misused (and should have been more clear) if you were to say that God created it in 7 days whereas I said that Allah created it per the story in the Koran and that neither of us could know what is true - because Allah and YHWH are not one in the same and my view would say that the Bible is not true, since I would be denying the point of the Genesis story (i.e. "God created").

One of the earlier posters seemed to sum up most of the criticisms of Velvet Elvis as:
_____
1. Is anti-orthodoxy:
2. Is light on biblical content
3. Seems to promote Rob Bell and his church more than Jesus
4. Causes people to doubt their faith
5. Divides Christians against one another
6. Is so "hip" and "cool" that even non-Christians love it
7. Ridicules people who hold a solid view of Scripture and who seek to defend it; such people are guilty of "brickianity" in Bell-speak
8. Allows contemporary culture to interpret and set the standards for the Bible rather than letting the Bible interpret and set the standards for contemporary culture
9. Promotes (and even rewards!) a lack of critical thinking; instead it praises emotion and feelings above all else
_______

While I'm not a Rob Bell "junkie" by any means, I have to say that I disagree wholeheartedly with almost every one of these arguments, as they don't really mesh with the reality of what is written, unless what Rob wrote is purposely misconstrued.

"1. Is anti-orthodoxy"
It is only anti-orthodoxy if you view traditions or traditional teachings not contained in the text of the Bible as "orthodox".

"Binding and Loosing" is a concept that was present in the first century, and is to be done communally based on the yoke of the accepted Rabbi. This isn't unorthodox - even the first century church in Jerusalem practiced this when making their suggestions on what parts of the Torah must be obeyed by Gentiles.

"2. Is light on biblical content"
It is light on QUOTED Biblical content, but his endnotes are rife with scripture, and his arguments are sound based upon his interpretation of scripture (which I, in reading his references, tend to agree with).

"3. Seems to promote Rob Bell and his church more than Jesus"
This seems to be a really twisted argument. Some critics say that he didn't really write enough about Mars Hill & how it started (charging false humility), whereas others say it was all about Mars Hill. From both of my readings of VE, I would say that he was pretty effective at minimizing his own "importance" and that when he used himself or Mars Hill, it was only for the purpose of laying a foundation for his stories, not to boast.

The Purpose-driven Church and PDL are both widely used resources which I have found valuable, and I think that Rick Warren and Saddleback are showcased in these books far more than Rob Bell and Mars Hill in VE. If he is going to write from his heart, you can't say he can't talk about himself or his experience, or you're robbing him of the stories he needs to be able to write.

"4. Causes people to doubt their faith"
I don't think "doubt" is the right word. I think "question" would be better, and that if you changed that word, that this would be OK. As he argues, questioning in Jesus time - and now - is a good thing, because it makes both the questioner and the questionee stronger. It is only if the "questioning" is done on the personal level and the questions are never asked that this is a problem.

5. Divides Christians against one another
Christians have been doing a fine enough job of this for centuries. If you take a stand on any issue within the church, you're pretty much guaranteeing that someone will disagree with you. Should we "be all things to all people" or should we insist that the Velvet Elvis - that is, the church of the past generation - is the only Way? Rob Bell's interpretation of scripture (100% true, though we may not know exactly what the "truth" was to the writer at the time it was written) seems much more in line with Jesus teaching than the rigid interpretation of "100% truth" many arrogant churches seem to push. It seems that Rob's interpretation should logically lead to more Christians agreeing to disagree and to debate where those disagreements occur than a rigid set of beliefs that insist their Way is the true way and all others are off the path.

"6. Is so "hip" and "cool" that even non-Christians love it"
Isn't the Gospel supposed to be "Good news", or was I taught wrong all those years ago? Shouldn't Jesus be as relevant to people today as he was 20 years, 200 years or 2000 years ago?

"7. Ridicules people who hold a solid view of Scripture and who seek to defend it; such people are guilty of "brickianity" in Bell-speak"
See my comments under #5 - I don't see him as ridiculing the "brickians" as much as he is warning against this way of thought, as it seeks to put limits on God. C.S. Lewis makes this same allegorical observation in The Last Battle (book 7 of the Chronicles of Narnia) with the dwarves who can't see anyone else in "heaven" because of their closed-mindedness.

The word "ridiculing" here is only applicable in that is it being used to attempt to "ridicule" Rob's view. His view is much more inclusive and in line with his Rabbis' yoke than the "brickian" view, which is to be pitied - not ridiculed.

"8. Allows contemporary culture to interpret and set the standards for the Bible rather than letting the Bible interpret and set the standards for contemporary culture."
Wow.

I will totally agree with the argument that contemporary culture should NOT set standards for the Bible, but the Bible should set standards for those living in that culture. However, I don't think Rob Bell goes this far in Velvet Elvis, though as I stated earlier in this review, I think he could have been more clear on this point.

From both of my readings of VE, my take on Bell's view is that he sees Paul's admonishment of "being all things to all people" as being a reason we need to evaluate the culture and separate that which is sin from that which is just different, and not to equate that which is different with that which is sinful (the very heart of legalism). It is the legalism of the church and the hiprocisy of those in church leadership who don't meet up to their own legalistic standards which seem most often to drive people away from the church. What Bell suggests, though, requires a great deal of discernment to avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater - to use an applicable cliche.

"9. Promotes (and even rewards!) a lack of critical thinking; instead it praises emotion and feelings above all else"
Once again, the books that make up the Bible were written primarily to an Hebrew audience, whose learning style was one of experience and emotion, and not to a Greek audience, which values logic over emotion and concept over experience. In Velvet Elvis, Bell stresses the Hebrew roots of Christianity, and this is one of those places where he could have talked more about a need for balancing both the Hebrew (experiential) and Greek (logical) views of our walk.

All in all, this is one of the most thought-provoking books I've read in the past year (with Gladwell's "Blink" being the other).

3 out of 5 stars

The Godfather? Nope. More Like Cool Hand Luke. August 3, 2005
55 out of 80 found this review helpful

In the movie "You've Got Mail" Tom Hanks' character (Joe Fox, F-O-X) said, "The Godfather is the I Ching. The Godfather is the sum of all wisdom. The Godfather is the answer to any question."

The Godfather won't help us in this case because what I see happening in these Amazon reviews is straight out of Cool Hand Luke: "What we have here is a failure to communicate."

By and large, those who have concerns about Velvet Elvis are quoting Rob's book and drawing from some theological or intellectual background to make their point, while those who support his book are drawing from personal experience with Rob Bell and/or Mars Hill to make theirs. The two sides are not even speaking the same language.

That paragraph was a generalization. I realize that. But for the purposes of making sense of these disparate reviews, I hope you will forgive my liberties.

I'm not quite sure I understand Chris Ostrander's review. I don't think anyone wrote/implied/meant Christianity's Jewish roots were unimportant or unknown. I think the reviewer said clearly that Christians already know where our faith came from, but aren't sure why that keeps coming up in reviews supporting the book.

I'm also not sure where Mike Sheridan is coming from. Reviews (pro and con) for Rob Bell's book stretch all the way back to July 14th. The book has been available in local (Grand Rapids) book stores for a couple of weeks now. I imagine many, many books have been sold (and passed from person to person) since it was put on the shelf. So I don't see why it's necessary to claim anyone's trying to "take Rob down."

Mike shared his testimony, which I wholeheartedly applaud and congratulate him for. He wrote, "I thought I could never come back to a religion that was full of mean, arrogant, people." Yet his tone and attitude was one of the meanest, most arrogant I've read to date. Mike, I'm sorry you don't like or agree with those who take issue with Rob's book. But you really shouldn't treat them with such contempt. The veracity of those who wrote the five star reviews isn't called into question. So why single out those who disagreed with Rob's book?

To be honest, I don't particularly agree with Rob's approach to Christianity. I think his theology is sketchy and his metaphors are stretched to the breaking point. But I marvel at his ability to market himself, his Noomas and Mars Hill. He has a delightfully engaging personality and is seemingly sincere when he speaks. However, one of the reasons why Velvet Elvis worries me is because those who angrily defend Rob's book seem to be missing the point of Rob's book. It's almost as if they're not really reading it. Rob's not preaching anger and hate and bitterness! Haven't you seen his Noomas? They're very emotional and compassionate.

This is the "failure to communicate" thing I mentioned earlier. There are a whole lot of disconnects happening here -- between those who like and dislike his book, and even within those who like his book but voice their opinions with venom. Messages are not getting through (or understood) for some reason.

I think there's a place in the world for Rob Bell. He speaks to those who seem to have nothing and need something. If Rob's book is able to soothe the hearts of those who are hurting, then I say pray for him and encourage him. Who knows what God can use? If good can come out of Velvet Elvis and Noomas, and people truly find a genuine relationship with Jesus (and a corresponding depth of knowledge of the Bible) then I say more power to Rob Bell.

However, I also think those who highly praise Velvet Elvis need to see where those who have concerns about Velvet Elvis are coming from. Their points are valid. They can't just be ignored -- or spoken to with contempt. People who think Velvet Elvis is wonderful from cover to cover have to accept the fact that Rob's approach to theology is not the norm and that people have concerns about it. Furthermore, I'd go so far as to say that Rob may not be correct in his thinking. That's a possibility, too. Just as it's a possibility that those who have concerns about Velvet Elvis could be wrong.

Each side should strive to understand the other side, and in so doing treat that "opposing" side with compassion and respect.

Above all, though, for Rob's sake, please don't write such venomous reviews in defense of Velvet Elvis! Such reviews only add credibility to the concerns of those who wrote the one star reviews. And, while everyone is at it, why not pray for enlightenment regarding those one star reviews?

Maybe there's truth to some of those comments that passion for and loyalty to Rob Bell have obscured.

Who knows? I certainly don't.

2 out of 5 stars

Rob Bell, are you a Christian? June 15, 2006
53 out of 69 found this review helpful

It's been a little while since I read Velvet Elvis. I read it last July out of an advanced readers copy, and after reading it, was afraid that this book might become influential. I think I was right.

The books first three chapters are intended to destroy any confidence you have in anything that you believe as a Christian, yet Bell never denies any of those core beliefs. He spends an entire chapter (ch. 2) undermining the reliability of the Bible, yet he states that the book still influences him more than any other, but doesn't even provide a reason for it. If you have a respect for the Bible, this book could cause you to jump up and down screaming like I did. However, outside of his blatant attacks on the Bible and on doctrine, (that's the purpose of chapter 1,) there are a few other things (both good and bad) to note about the book.

First, I liked Bell's honesty, and how he described some of the requirements of living the Christian life. He realizes that you must practice what you preach. Sometimes he seems to overreact.
Josh Harris has said, "If your life and the truth don't line up, don't change the truth, change your life." Bell seems to choose the wrong route here, but he does recognize the problem, so I'll give him props for that.

Bell's instruction to go and find your super-whatever and kill it is great advice. That drive to do everything and be perfect all of the time is destructive. He makes good points here. I enjoyed it. So, the book is not all bad. That's why I gave it two stars.

However, two other things must be mentioned.
1. His marrying of an anti-Christian but spiritual couple
2. His position on missions

1. Bell tells a story at the beginning (and comes back to it at the end) of chapter 3 about his marrying a couple that didn't want him to talk to them about God and Jesus at all, but to make the wedding "spiritual." Bell does so, and he has nothing but praise for the event. Notice that these people are consciously, actively rejecting God and Christ, and a supposedly Christian pastor is not only marrying them, but glorying in their wedding and encouraging their spirituality.

THE UNANIMOUS DECLARATION OF SCRIPTURE IS THAT PEOPLE WHO REJECT GOD IN SUCH A MANNER WILL BE CONDEMNED! How can a pastor encourage this? As another reviewer has said, it's like being happy with a terminal disease and going to a doctor and him saying, your sickness is beautiful, rather than giving them the cure. I don't know how a Christian with any type of integrity can encourage this type of spirituality. Does he think that this is without consequence? It disgusted me.

2. His treatment of missionaries as tour guides infuriated me. I have been in missions. And according to Bell, I should go back to Tibet and show the people God there. Go and encourage the old women who spin prayer wheels probably 90% of their waking hours, enslaved to "good" works, that their attempts to make merit for themselves is admirable, and that they are going to go to heaven because of it. I am supposed to encourage these Tibetan Buddhists to continue to sacrifice to appease the mountain dieties so that their grass will grow better. I should encourage them to continue to prostrate themselves before idols of Vajrapani (do an image search of this god, it might shock you to see how "peaceful" Tibetan Buddhism is) pointing out that the devout act of prostration will indeed achieve eternal life for them.

NO!

Christians are called to go and present the gospel of Christ, to see people turn from their sin and believe on Christ for salvation. I'm sorry, salvation is in Christ, and if I am going as a missionary, I want to see people saved not point out a clearer path to hell. Phew. I apoligize that I ranted, but I grieve knowing that Bell's ideas are influencing missionaries and Christians here at home.

Powered by Associate-O-Matic

T-shirts, Posters

Pentagram T-shirts, bags, etc...

Gothic Posters