(Zondervan, 2005, 208 pp.)
Rob Bell, pastor of Mars Hill Bible Church in Grandville, Michigan,
is in many ways taking the Christian world by storm. His "Everything is
Spiritual" tour sold out 24 of 25 venues in 2006, and his series of
short videos, called NOOMA, are selling thousands of copies each.
Apparently, Bell has a message that is resonating with vast numbers
of people, and he’s presenting that message in a way that’s obviously
connecting.
On its surface, Bell’s first book, Velvet Elvis, might seem
rather innocuous. His stated goal is to rethink the Christian faith in
terms that will "strip it down to the bare bones" and get it back to
"the most basic elements." For the most part, he pursues that goal in a
style that is reasonable and to-the-point. He talks about humility,
about asking questions, about wrestling with the biblical text—phrases
that many evangelicals use daily.
But I am convinced that when Bell brings all these things together,
the result is something far more revolutionary than what appears on the
surface. In fact, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that Bell actually
ends up throwing the entire Christian gospel up for grabs. God is made
so mysterious, doctrine is deemed so questionable, and biblical
interpretations are so relativized that in the end, Bell leaves us
wondering if anything can be known for sure, or if any understanding of
the Christian faith and gospel is any better than any other.
For example, take Bell’s reconception of the idea of doctrine. Bell
argues that the doctrines of Christianity should be thought of as the
"springs" that hold up the trampoline on which we jump and live in
Christ. The springs are not the main point; they merely facilitate the
greater goal of "us finding our lives in God" (25). Now that analogy
has some truth to it. But it’s also more dangerous than it might first
appear. Conceiving of Christian doctrines as springs allows Bell to say
that getting the doctrines right is not really that important. If you
don’t like one or two of the springs, you can just take them out of the
trampoline and keep on jumping.
Here is Bell’s take on the doctrine of the Trinity, for instance:
"It is a spring, and people jumped for thousands of years without it.
It was added later. We can take it out and examine it. Discuss it,
probe it, question it. It flexes, and it stretches" (22). And what
about Christ’s birth to a virgin? Bell asks, "What if that spring was
seriously questioned? Could a person keep jumping? Could a person still
love God? Could you still be a Christian?" (26).
Bell affirms his belief in both the Trinity and the Virgin Birth,
but he also says he wants to carve out some room to "question" those
doctrines.
But what does he mean by that? Is he saying that one can study them,
ask questions of them, learn from them? I wish he was. Yet why does
Bell even pose the question? Why does he ask, "Could a person keep
jumping?" and then not answer it? I can only conclude that Bell is
saying that it wouldn’t matter very much if someone stopped affirming them. "Yes, of course you can keep jumping, even if you stop believing in the Trinity or the Virgin Birth."
Bell’s "questions" are not as innocuous as they first sound. They
are the means by which he permits one to disconnect and throw away the
springs one doesn’t like.
The same relativizing tendency is present in Bell’s handling of
Scripture as well. Bell likes to say that the Bible has to be
interpreted, a point with which very few people would disagree. But
Bell’s point is broader. He wants his readers to understand that they
have as much right to interpret the Bible as anyone else (50). Even
more, no one’s interpretation is any better than any one else’s.
When you hear people say they are just going to tell you what the Bible means, it is not true. They are telling you what they think it means. They are giving their opinions about the Bible" (54).
Everybody’s interpretation is essentially his or her own opinion. Nobody is objective" (53).
In other words, some person or group of people simply made a
decision that the text means this, not that. So the fact that we
worship on Sunday, and not Saturday? "At one point in church history, a
group of Christians decided that the Sabbath is not Saturday, but
Sunday." (56) The fact that we do not sell all our possessions for the
poor, or make women wear head coverings? Or even more to the point, the
fact that we say a wife’s role is to submit to her husband? "This is
because someone somewhere made a decision about those texts . . .
Somebody in your history decided certain Bible verses still apply and
others don’t" (55-56).
The effect of all this is to say that you can safely ignore just
about any Christian doctrine or practice that doesn’t sit well with
you. That’s the logical outcome of calling every interpretation a mere opinion.
Now of course there is some truth in Bell’s statement that every
Christian can interpret Scripture for himself or herself. That is what
we mean by the "priesthood of all believers." But the point is to
determine as accurately as possible what the author meant, and
there are rules and systems and tools for determining that meaning.
Bell is right to say that no one can come to the Bible entirely
objectively. But even recognizing that, the fact remains that some
interpretations are better than others. They make more sense of the
words and the context. Bell seems to have no appreciation for that at
all. By making all understandings of Scripture mere "opinions," and all
traditions mere "decisions," he drives the priesthood of all believers
to absurd, post-modern conclusions. The interpreter is now
authoritative, not the text! Readers are invited to shape the Christian
faith as they see fit.
There are other questions to be asked about this book as well. For
instance, Bell’s reinterpretation of hell—that it is full of forgiven
people who simply have chosen to live in their own version of their
story, rather than in God’s version of it—is open to serious scrutiny
(146). So is his assertion that Peter’s problem was that he lost faith
in himself, rather than in Christ (133). Neither of these ideas enjoys
any support in Scripture. But as Bell understands Christianity, they
have as much right to be believed as anyone else’s "opinions."
That’s what happens when one relativizes Christianity in this way.
Bell can so unashamedly offer up such novel ideas because he is
convinced that the traditional body of Christian doctrine and the
traditional interpretations of Scripture are just opinions. Thus they
can be dismissed without a second thought, and replaced with doctrines
and interpretations more to his liking. At bottom, Bell seems to have
no patience with a well-defined, systematic Christianity. On the
contrary, he appears to be on a mission to shove away anything which
threatens to give the gospel hard edges or clear boundaries.
So what happens to doctrine? It’s demoted. Scripture? Relativized.
Hell? Redefined. Faith? Redirected. And what Bell erects in the old
gospel’s place is a new gospel heavy on openness, mystery, questions
and rawness, but inexcusably light on biblical Christianity.
Greg Gilbert is the 9Marks lead writer on the topic of the gospel.
He is also the director of theological research for the president of
The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and an elder at Third Avenue
Baptist Church in Louisville, KY.
September 2006
Greg Gilbert
©9Marks
Permissions: You are
permitted and encouraged to reproduce and distribute this material in
any format, provided that you do not alter the wording in any way, you
do not charge a fee beyond the cost of reproduction, and you do not
make more than 1,000 physical copies. For web posting, a link to this
document on our website is preferred. Any exceptions to the above must
be explicitly approved by 9Marks.
Please include the following statement on any distributed copy: ©9Marks. Website: www.9Marks.org. Email: info@9marks.org. Toll Free: (888) 543-1030.