Velvet Elvis Book Review--when cool replaces truth

Bell is an interesting writer, and presents a compelling argument to the indiscriminate reader who is “looking for something more”. He writes with a finger on the pulse of post-modern culture and is definitely “Mr. Cool” in his style and language. It appears to me that his intention is the same as mine: to live authentically, and to possess and preach real faith. Nevertheless, I think he errs in his approach. He deconstructs biblical truth at many junctures and adopts a pragmatic approach to the Faith. He downplays or denies objective truth categorically—the ultimate irony. The following represents a critical analysis of his book Velvet Elvis.

Page 11—Is our challenge to remain “open and flexible”? This is popular social thinking, and has some pragmatic merits; I’m not sure it can be substantiated biblically though.

12—Bell is confused. The reformers weren’t “reforming” the Bible or biblical faith. They were seeking to reform an ecclesiastical institution by pointing people back to apostolic doctrine. Interestingly, it was the doctrines that they lived and died for that Bell downplays later in chapter 1 (i.e. the necessity of Christ’s sinless humanity through his denial of the necessity of the virgin birth doctrine)

14 (last paragraph)—what “tradition” is Bell referring to? If it really includes all the positions he mentions as well as “every person everywhere”, then what he means is absolutely everyone. That being the case, I wonder what world he lives in if he really thinks “every person everywhere” is asking “big questions of a big God”? That’s not my world, nor is it an apt description of humanity as a whole ( see Rom 3:10-11).

20 (3^rd last line)—Jesus didn’t “pursue peace in every possible situation”. If Jesus’ life is a “better way” sometimes we must embrace conflict. Jesus did come to divide at times.

21 (last line)—Bell’s wording here is tricky; as at many points in his book. While I wouldn’t feel comfortable saying “I’m right” on all issues, what makes the statement “I’m living right” any more glorious? Is living right a higher ideal than thinking right? Bell strikes me as a pragmatist…his almost sole concern is active faith, yet Jesus teaches in the Great Commandment that we are to love God with our minds too. It seems to follow that to think right, is to be Christ-like, among other things.

22 (last 2 paragraphs)—I like the last line of the page, but the second last paragraph is very sloppy. Trinitarian doctrine wasn’t “added later”. As God progressively revealed himself through the 66 books, his tri-unity was increasingly apparent and is described in creedal statements. Bell’s comparison of this doctrine to a spring is a very relative statement.

23 (4^th line ff)—Does he mean by “words” the Word? If so, Bell fails to understand the claims of the Bible as the living Word of God. God does share some of his absoluteness with us through the living Word of God. It’s as if Bell’s logic is as follows: since God is beyond complete description, the Bible doesn’t describe Him.

23 (6^th last line)—untrue. Hinduism has worshipped a shapeless deity since circa 3000 BC.

24 (2^nd line)—untrue. God is limitless in power, but has boundaries in the form of his attributes. Heb 6:18 states that “God cannot lie.” In telling us this, God is putting boundaries on Himself. I think it’s a common fallacy that God “doesn’t box himself in”, to use popular terminology.

25 (3^rd last paragraph)—while his statement is true on a macro scale, it is untrue on a micro scale. There are certain things about Himself that God wants us to “figure out”, otherwise, morality for instance, would be indefinable.

25 (last full paragraph)—Do doctrines give us “insight and understanding into the experience of God”, or does doctrine inform our experiences to determine if they are of God? A person can have many experiences, but if our experiences are not informed by truth, how can we interpret them? For instance, if I have a bad feeling in my stomach, in and of itself, it is merely an indefinable experience, when in fact my experience is based upon some previous reality. That reality could be eating too much bad pizza or a conflicted relationship. My point is that reality/truth informs experience. Experience doesn’t inform truth. I must know something about the realities of my life to make the judgement call. In my mind, doctrine is not a servant to my experiences. It tells me what experiences I should and shouldn’t have (greed, lust, anger, etc).

Further, I think Bell fails to see that doctrine is Bible. Doctrine doesn’t refer to the creeds we devise to describe Bible doctrine. The words of the Bible are doctrine. To speak of doctrine as a “horrible master” seems almost blasphemous to me.

Further to that, I notice Bell often references his own experiences as precursors to his views. It appears that his book largely flows out of his own presuppositions rather than a careful handling of the Bible (2 Tim 2:15).

26-28—as a general comment, he takes his metaphors way to far to make his point. I think the trampoline/brick wall metaphors can be helpful but he abuses them as I hope to show in the following comments.

26 (2^nd full paragraph)—in fairness to the unnamed six-day creationist, one would have to understand his whole argument before tossing his conclusion. Most six-day creationists build their argument from (a) a literal reading of the text, (b) the doctrine of imago dei, (c) the fall, etc. I’m not sure why Bell lambastes the conclusion but fails to address the argument.

26 (last lengthy paragraph)—Wow! While affirming his own belief in the virgin birth on page 27, Bell dismantles the need for belief in a virgin birth (or the need for the reality of the virgin birth), and thereby removes it from it’s position as a cardinal verity of orthodoxy. I’d find it hard to believe that Bell wouldn’t understand that the virgin birth is necessary to the doctrine of Christ’s sinless humanity, and the teaching that Christ was the second Adam who alone can atone for sin. That said, I’d like to know more about his beliefs about salvation (but he appears to be unconcerned about beliefs, with the possible exception of his own beliefs about beliefs!). For Bell it’s all about the question: is “the way of Jesus still the best possible way to live?” If he really means what he’s saying, then he’s advocating a works-based salvation rather than a salvation necessarily and solely offered by Christ’s substitiutionary death as the sinless second Adam (Rom 5).

27 (second line)—I’d say yes, the whole thing does fall apart. If the virgin birth is not both true and necessary, I’m not a Christian, nor would want to be. All faiths offer insight in how to live; Christ alone offers to bear sin as the sinless God-man (which he would not be had he not been virgin born).

27 (3^rd last paragraph)—Bell states “you spend a lot of time talking about how right you are”. Of course the average reader bristles with fear of being branded arrogant or uppity at that statement! What Bell fails to address however is that the Bible itself commands (clearly) us to engage in apologetics (1 Pet 3:15). In other words, while he might not like defending doctrine vehemently, God tells us to (did I say clearly?). Second, his book itself is an apologetic of his thesis (we need to be constantly reforming). If defending one’s position (or God’s position) is wrong, then the Bible is faulty and all dialogue ends. While he is “far more interested in jumping than arguing”, unfortunately Jesus and his apostles had other ideas. I think we’re safer to follow their approach than Bell’s.

28 (2^nd line)—“brickianity is that walls inevitably keep people out”. So, is the Gospel inclusive? It there really a way or many ways? Did Jesus really die or not? Is God really loving or not? Is the mental assent than the reformers spoke of and the Bible speaks of unnecessary? I could go on. Bell is a classic relativist cloaked in Christianity. Sadly, his worldview is incompatible with the nature of special revelation and the Gospel itself as an exclusive belief/faith system.

28—“Jesus invites everybody to jump”—does he really? Show me where.

40ff—so let me get this straight…Bell heard “a voice”, became “aware of something so real”, and “was standing on holy ground”? And I’m supposed to believe that his experience was of God, but I’m also supposed to be sceptical of the legitimacy of Joshua’s attack on Jericho, etc., as a “thinking, honest” person (p. 42). Bell wants me to have confidence in his experience, and yet little in the historicity of Scripture, virgin birth, etc.

42 (last line to first full para p. 43)—So, every time “everything in me says, ‘There is no way that’s what God meant by that verse’”, am I right? Again, Bell appeals to experience to back up his presuppositions. If he doesn’t like what the Bible says, he chalks it up to interpretational difficulty. If he likes it (as in Jesus’ command to follow/be moral, etc), he embraces it as clear.

43 (fifth last line) and 45 (11^th last line ff)—Bell clearly picks and chooses what verses are to be taken at face value based upon his presuppositions. He portrays the command “wives submit” as unclear (check the verses before and after he says [which add to but don’t overturn the command]), and the command “love your neighbour” as clear. Who can’t see this, he ask rhetorically. Like duh, if you can’t see Bell’s point, you’re an idiot! Yet, while both passages do have contexts attached, both are equally clear grammatically. Both are equally repeated and illustrated in the Bible. Why toss one and embrace another?

44—what is Bell’s basis for claiming the “Bible is open ended”? To be “open-ended” and “it has to be interpreted” are not one and the same. Open-ended implies incomplete and unfinished. I don’t know that he means this, but he’s certainly sloppy

50 (11^th last line ff.)—How does Bell know that Jesus “expects his followers to engage in the endless task of deciding what it means to actually live the Scriptures” (italics mine)? I’ve read through the Bible numerous times and don’t recall ever reading that!

50-69—Bell’s lengthy diatribe against objectivity in interpretation is undermined by his own conclusions on pgs. 68-69 where he calls communities to “wrestle” with the Bible (I presume he means understand how to live it out, since that is his emphasis throughout). But in living it out, do we not need to decide/affirm/discover how the Bible is instructing us to live it out? How can I live what I have not first understood? All Bell has succeeded in doing is pointing out the obvious, that we read through our own grids (in part). But it’s a huge leap to then conclude that the Bible is up-for-grabs and can mean many different things. If interpretation is as slippery as Bell argues then why write at all? How do I really know what Bell is saying in his human-authored book? How is conversation possible between two people, if interpretation is so loose? Frankly, I think Bell takes the issue of flaws in interpretation way too far. A person can read the Bible and arrive at reasonable conclusions, while leaving room for the potential of error in the details.

69—Jacob’s wrestling with God and subsequent limp has nothing to do with wrestling with Bible interpretation. Jacob may have come away from God with a limp, but Bell’s misapplication of the text to support his contention is lame!