nothing is yet in its true form

For some time now, I have been troubled by the masses of Christians jumping on the Rob Bell/Velvet Elvis train. As a twenty something aged Christian, I sometimes feel that Velvet Elvis has become as widely accepted as Lewis’ Mere Christianity or Bonhoeffer’s Cost of Discipleship. While I do not consider Lewis’ or Bonhoeffer’s writings to be scripture, I do feel that their teachings fall into the Orthodox Christianity. Many have read Velvet Elvis, or have watched a nooma video (a series of short videos produced and starring Rob Bell) and have accepted Bell’s teaching as truth, but I have been apprehensive to do so for sometime. When I first read Velvet Elvis, there was a part of me that kept saying, “Something isn’t adding up here,” and I naturally assumed that I was just being paranoid or overly skeptical. However, after spending much time in study and prayer, I am now of the opinion that Rob Bell is leaving the range of what I consider to be Biblical Christianity.

First, let me begin by saying that I do not think that Rob Bell does not love Jesus or is any more of a sinner than anyone else. I simply am worried about the places he is taking his readers and the ease at which his writings are accepted by the masses. I first stumbled upon his writings when I was looking for a book to help reach a friend of mine who is disenchanted with Christianity and I assumed that Bell’s theology held the same beliefs that I wanted my friend to see (only through a different perspective). I was discussing this strategy with a friend and he hit me with the question, “What exactly did you think the book would offer your disenchanted friend?” My answer was a “repainted” view of Christianity, a new perspective on Jesus. My friend told me that I should take a harder look at the book and really see if that is what it offered. Honestly, the first time I read the book, I sped-read to get the basic idea of what Bell was all about (I am guilty of speed-reading many things), saw a few Bible verses and assumed that the theology was sound. My second and third readings were more critical (by critical, I do not mean mistrustful).

During my later readings, I discovered very early on that Bell loves trampolines. He uses the analogy that Christian doctrine are the springs of the trampoline, which “help give words to the depth that we are experiencing in our jumping” (Bell, 22). The problem with this is the source of the spring. I would offer that Christian doctrine is based upon the Bible, and if it is not, then it should not be considered doctrine. Look at any credible systematic theology and you will see endless lists of verses backing up doctrinal statements. Bell’s springs however, don’t give words to ideas of scripture, they give words to how we experience God. Do you see the difference? What if I claim that my experience of God is contradictory to your experience of God? Or what if my experience of God is contradictory to the Bible? The only reason springs on a trampoline work is because they are fixed to something very solid (the frame). If the spring is fixed to the experiential and not the biblical, than I would offer that it will be extremely ineffective. As Isaiah puts it, “The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever” (Isaiah 40:8).

Later in this same chapter, Bell hypothetically questions the doctrine of the virgin birth and in essence asserts a situation where scripture would be lying about Jesus. He does so to prove his point that “if the whole faith falls apart when we rexamine and rethink one spring, then it wasn’t that strong in the first place was it” (Bell, 27)? I would argue that this is very faulty logic and completely unbiblical thinking. On the doctrine of the resurrection Paul says, “if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain” (1 Corinthians 15:14). To use Bell’s example, if Jesus was not born of a virgin, then scripture is lying about Jesus and if we lose what scripture says about Jesus, we lose Jesus. In the words of Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church in Seattle, “I went to public school, and even I know that Jesus is huge for Christianity.” What if the springs we are rexamining are the doctrines of the atonement or the divinity of Jesus? The Christian faith is not only destabalized by the removal of these doctrines; it is made almost insignificant.

Bell also brings up some interesting ideas about questioning God. He asserts that questioning God is a good thing and perhaps those who don’t question, are not engaging God. I will give him half credit on this point because I too think that questioning God is not incompatible with following Christ. But taking questions too far can poison what the Bible refers to as “the fear of God.” As a follower of Christ, where does the questioning stop and obedience begin? Jesus says, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (Matthew 22:39). At what point do I stop asking why I need to love my neighbor and start doing it? You know who really loved stretching questions out? Does the question, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’” (Genesis 3:1), sound familiar to anyone else. Yes God is big enough for our questions, but at some point we must lay them aside and obey.

Bell also quotes Sean Penn who says, “When everything gets answered, it’s fake. The mystery is the truth.” The Apostle Paul has a little bit of a different opinion when he writes, “For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known. So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love” (1 Corinthians 13:12-13). Paul offers that there will be a day when we shall fully know what we only know now in part. He says three things abide, but the greatest is love. To quote Matthew Henry, “Faith fixes on the divine revelation, and assents to that: hope fastens on future felicity, and waits for that: and in heaven faith well be swallowed up in vision, and hope in fruition.” Heaven (life in the presence of God) is not great because it is going to be mysterious. There we shall know God in the fullness of His love and we will have no need for the mystery.

One of the most troubling things that Bell says is in regards to the purpose of the church. He asserts that “The church does not exist for itself; it exists to serve the world” (Bell, 165). I would humbly suggest that the church lives to serve God. This should be our primary goal, and the fact that God’s plan for our lives serves the world is a biproduct. Jesus tells Satan, “You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve” (Matthew 4:10). My understanding is that Jesus’ comission to the church is to “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:19-20). My understanding is that my life and the lives of the body of Christ is for the purpose of bringing glory to God, “so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Phillipians 2:10-11). The idea of church existing to serve the world is humanism, not Christianity.

Finally, for those who care to examine Rob Bell’s endnotes you will find that he has some interesting influences. For instance, note 143 in the movement seven list says, “For a mind-blowing introduction to emergence theory and divine creativity, set aside three months and read Ken Wilber’s A Brief History of Everything. For those of you who aren’t familiar with Wilber, he is a Madhyamika Buddhist who endorses zen, kabbalah, and tantric yoga (hindu sex techniques). Bell gives a reccomendation for people to set aside a large amount of time and read Wilber’s book to gain insight into “divine creativity.” I might suggest that Wilber would be one of the last places I would look for insight into God. Especially when one considers the fact that in Wilber’s book, A Theory of Everything, he proposes that human history is moving through nine phases of evolutionary progress and Christianity falls in the fourth phase of “the mythic order” (aka theism). This theory suggests that we will evolve beyond the primitive (Christianity) into a more enlightened way of thinking.

Also found in Bell’s endnotes is two mentions of Marcus Borg. Borg is a member of the Jesus Seminar and is a panentheist (not to be confused with a pantheist). Panentheists believe that God is both indwelling everything and trascendent or is the supreme affect and effect of the universe. This bipolar view of God is more gnostic than anything else. This view teaches that God is evolving and will someday be perfect. Borg’s view of Jesus is also a heavy influence on Bell.

I am not writing this to be nitpicky about a popular book. I am writing this because the ideas which Rob Bell sets into motion are very dangerous. Even though he references the Bible many times, I believe Rob Bell has a very low view of the authority of scripture. In regards to scripture Bell says two questionable things. First he states that, “In affirming the Bible as inspired, I have to affirm the Spirit who I believe was inspiring those people to choose those books” (Bell, 68). I completely agree with this statement because I completely believe that the Holy Spirit was at work in the writing and compilation of the Bible. But what he says next is troubling. “Were they binding and loosing the Bible itself” (Bell, 68)? Does he take this process of spirit-led binding and loosing as one that we continue on today? Does he see communities of future believers deciding that parts of the Bible need to stay and parts need to go?

Bell’s strategies embrace what is known as a trajectory hermaneutic (a hermeneutic is a method of interpretation). This method understands that the Bible sets into motion ideas that overtime evolve into a doctrine that may contradict the Bible, but really are the logical outcome of the direction the Bible moved the thinking. This idea came out when Rob Bell moved from male elders, to male and female elders at his church. This move, according to Bell, was based on a book called Slaves, Women and Homosexuals by William Webb. This is the reasoning that Bell uses for stances that contradict what the Bible says and it essential maintains that we are more enlightened now than they were 2,000 years ago. Therefore, we have made the logical conclusions using the Bible, but now they contradict the Bible.

Take a good look for yourself. Read Velvet Elvis again. Look at the Bible and remember that in trying to understand God, we must attempt to understand Him as He is, and not how we wish He would be. Jesus prayed for us (yes, you and me) saying “Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth” (John 17:17). To be sanctified is to be set apart, and we are to be set apart by the Word of God. We are not to be set apart by postmodernism or new philosophies. The word of God is the truth. Bell wants to repaint Christianity, but show me the parts where the paint is chipping. G.K. Chesterton said that the problem with Christianity isn’t that it has “been tried and found wanting, it has been found hard and left untried.”