Product Description

God never changes, nor do the central truths of Christianity. But our understanding of those truths is in constant flux. Christians will always be exploring and discovering what it means to live in harmony with God and each other. Now in softcover, Velvet Elvis offers original and refreshingly personal perspectives on what Christianity is really about.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #3263 in Books
• Published on: 2006-07-01
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 208 pages

Features

• ISBN13: 9780310273080
• Condition: USED - GOOD
• Notes:
• Click here to view our Condition Guide and Shipping Prices

From Publishers Weekly
Bell, pastor of Mars Hill Bible Church in Grand Rapids, Mich., offers an innovative and intriguing, if uneven, first book. This introduction to the Christian faith is definitely outside the usual evangelical box. Bell wants to offer "a fresh take on Jesus"—a riff that begins with the assertion that Jesus wanted to "call people to live in tune with reality" and that he "had no use for religion." Bell invites seekers into a Christianity that has room for doubts (his church recently hosted an evening where doubters were invited to ask their hardest, most challenging questions). He mocks literalists whose faith seems to depend on a six-day creation, and one of his favorite people is a woman who turned up repeatedly at his church, only to tell him that she totally disagreed with his teachings. He cites his church as a place of forgiveness, mystery, community and transformation. Bell is well-versed in Jewish teachings and draws from rabbinic wisdom and stories freely. His casual, hip tone can grate at times, and his footnotes, instructing readers to drop everything and read the books that have influenced him, grow old. Still, this is faithful, creative Christianity, and Gen-Xers especially will find Bell a welcome guide to the Christian faith. (Aug.)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Review
"God doesn't change, but times do, and Rob Bell, founding pastor of Mars Hill Bible Church in Michigan, believes new times call for us to remain open and flexible, living with passion and conviction....An advocate of a postmodern approach to faith, Bell is vulnerable about his own struggles with doubt and understanding Scripture. Joy, awe, raw honesty, and an appreciation for the mystery of faith permeate the pages." — Christianity Today

(Christianity Today )

"Rob Bell is able to draw more depth out of the New Testament than I thought possible....I would have finished this book in record time if I didn't have to put it down so often just so I could sit back and process what I was learning. Buy two copies, one for you and one to pass around." — YouthWorker Journal

(YouthWorker Journal )

From the Back Cover
We know there’s something more. We sense it, we feel it, and we want it. But how do we find it—a spirituality that stands up to the questions of an honest, searching mind? “This book is for those who need a fresh take on Jesus and what it means for us to live the kind of life he teaches us to live,” writes Rob Bell. “This pursuit of Jesus is leading us backward as much as forward … I am learning that what seems brand new is often just the discovery of something that has been there all along— it just got lost somewhere and it needs to be picked up, dusted off, and reclaimed.” Now in softcover, Velvet Elvis offers original and refreshingly personal perspectives on what Christianity is really about. “We have to test everything,” writes Bell. “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?”

Customer Reviews

Thought-provoking start of a needed conversation
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).

Caution
In "Velvet Elvis" Rob Bell makes a needed call to the Church. He asserts that we need to rethink the implications of Christian truth on the lives of us those who follow Jesus, and on those who are not following Him. With a flair for making history and theology meld together understandably Bell guides the reader through a process of questioning and affirming what Christians believe and hold dear, then applying what he learns to life, friendships, politics, the environment, and an assortment of other issues. This is not a comfortable process, but many will find it useful.

However, a weakness of this book is Bell's penchant to use the poor illustrations of people he disagrees with (like Christian truth being a brick wall in which if you take one piece of truth out, like the virgin birth of Christ, it weakens the entire wall) and replacing them with equally weak illustrations (like Christianity being like a trampoline that will survive even if you take out a spring, like the virgin birth) and building an argument on them. What you get is what seems to be sound observations that can lead to some pretty bad theology if taken to their logical conclusion. Think about it, if you deny the virgin birth you weaken the Church's claims for the divinity of Jesus, and even though that may not weaken the faith of some, it sure would lead to the weakening of the underpinnings of "the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3). Use caution, keep your bible close to hand, and keep your brain turned on while you read this.

As far as presentation goes, if you have heard Rob Bell speak then you will recognize the cadence of his spoken words in the text of this book. It is packaged in an unconventional style that is cool and comfortable, unless you are stickler for grammar and format in which case the physical presentation and writing style of the book will annoy you.

Over all I give this book a three b/c it needs to be read by mature Christians as a wake-up call to re-engage in their questioning of what they believe. However, this is not something I would recommend to seekers or young Christians b/c of the dangerous places this could lead them.

Hard to know what to make of it
American pastor Rob Bell is a leader in the Emerging Church movement, and this book seeks to apply the principles of postmodernism to the contemporary church. The result is a mixed bag. Much of the book is simply a call to love Jesus more, to rediscover the wonder and mystery of the faith. As such, it is just another book on Christian living, and cannot really be faulted. But it is the over-reliance on the postmodernist framework that is cause for concern.

This comes out most clearly when Bell speaks of our understanding of scripture and truth. Consider statements such as this: "we have to be honest about our interpretations. Everybody's interpretation is essentially his or her own opinion. Nobody is objective"

Here the PoMo/DeCon idea that there is only interpretation, never final and knowable truth, is unnecessarily embraced. Yes, it is always true that none of us have the whole picture, that all our views will be slanted to a degree. Given that we are fallen and finite, this must be so. And we did not need postmodernism to tell us that.

Yet what about the other side of the coin? What about the many passages which speak of truth, and our ability to know it, and seek after it, albeit imperfectly? What about where it says that the Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth? Is there no place for objective truth?

Again, no one has all the truth, and all of us need each other as we seek truth. But the overemphasis on our inability to fully understand God's word, to fully comprehend truth, is simply unbalanced. We acknowledge our need to be humble, to be constantly on our knees, to recognise our limits, yes. But we also have a God who is true, and who seeks to convey truth to us.

Bell also speaks of the need to be content with wonder, with mystery, with uncertainty. Again, in one sense this is quite correct. None of us have God all figured out. None of us have a corner on the truth, and too often we try to rationalise and intellectualise our faith. There is a place for mystery and even mysticism. And whole chunks of the church have long embraced this, such as our Eastern Orthodox brethren.

But this must not be allowed to get out of balance. God has revealed true truth to us, and it is often propositional in format. There is a place for doctrine, for theology, for the use of the mind. We must not throw the baby out with the bath water here, but find the biblical balance.

Unfortunately, it is often just not clear what Bell is getting at in this book. At times, for example, he seems to be making the case that all truth is God's truth. This expression, when rightly understood, is something we can affirm. If something is true, then God is the author of it. But Bell's unwillingness to commit to any propositional forms of truth, and his idea that all interpretation is ultimately relative and subjective, leaves one in a morass of uncertainty as to ever finding any truth. Or it allows any truth claim and experience to go unchecked.

Indeed, he seems to wander here and there, taking pot-shots at orthodox Christianity, our understanding of truth, the place of reason, and the nature of Scripture. One is not quite sure where he actually stands on many of these issues. Often vague and confused statements are made, leaving the reader unclear as to just what is being claimed.

This can be found in various passages throughout the book. At one point Bell makes this startling assertion: "we got the Bible from the church voting on what the Bible even is". This sounds like something found in the Da Vinci Code. It is simplistic at best and mischievous at worst. While the story of canonisation is a complex one, the early church recognised the authority of what became the New Testament documents over a period of time. They did not vote on this, nor arbitrarily pick and choose.

And consider this someway puzzling remark: "Whatever those things are that make you feel fully alive and like the universe is ultimately a good place and you are not alone" He says these moments "are a part of our faith." Taken at face value, we could decipher this to suggest someone experiencing an hallucinogenic drug trip is taking part in biblical faith.

This kind of vague and imprecise meandering runs throughout the book. The reaction often is, Just what is he on about? If by the above remark he means something like what C.S. Lewis wrote about when he spoke of experiences of joy as signposts to God, then this is not problematic. But it is often unclear just what Bell is trying to get at, and so he opens himself up to all kinds of weird and whacky ideas, that seem to veer way off line.

But given his insistence that all forms of interpretation may be equally valid, I suppose if a drug user wants to find comfort in his remarks, he is entitled to do so.

In the end, the reader may be challenged in their faith because of this book. I hope so. But for this reader, the book was simply confusing, imprecise, lacking in direction and ultimately frustrating. Perhaps that is just me. But if I had to suggest a title to give someone to encourage them in their walk with God, I am afraid this would not be it.