Velvet Elvis 1
I recently started reading a book by Rob Bell called Velvet Elvis. This book has raised quite a bit of a stink in the fundamental evangelical circle. In chapter 1 Bell points out his interesting view of theology. He views each point of theology as a spring that holds up a trampoline. If you have one missing, then you can still jump on the trampoline. For example, he says you don’t have to believe Mary was a virgin when she bore Jesus in order to be saved. He’s not saying Mary wasn’t a virgin, or that he doesn’t believe in that, but rather it is not a necessity for the initial salvation experience.
If you witnessed to someone who had never heard of Christ before, would they have to believe in the virgin birth (or other theology) before they received Christ?
He goes on to state that some fundamentalists view theology as a wall of bricks, each being dependant upon the other as a means for salvation. If you don’t believe in the brick of the trinity, then your “wall” crumbles.
So what if someone claims their immoral lifestyle to be a “spring”? For instance a converted homosexual who clings to his/her lifestyle after conversion, proclaiming their ability to jump on the trampoline without that one “spring” of a Biblical lifestyle.
what do you think?
My brother jumped on our trampoline when it was missing a spring once. It ripped in half and he fell to the ground. Even the demons believe some points of theology. There is a distinct difference between believing in theology and believing in certain standards or doctrines.
that’s really funny about your brother. Ryan, do you think someone has to believe in doctrine to receive Christ? if so, what?
Jake,
I really like the look and theme of your site.
I believe that people must believe in certain core Christian truths in order to receive Christ. They must believe that He is the Son of God sent to die on the cross for our sins so that our severed relationship with God (through the fall) might be reconciled. Some doctrines (such as free will and apostasy) I believe are left to the interpretation of the Christian. Neither of those doctrines will get us to heaven.
Something I left out of the core Christian truths. A person must not only believe all those things about Christ, but they almost must accept him as the Savior of the world and themself and begin a relationship with Him.
can someone accept christ and not be able to put into words what is happening? for example: i know i do bad things, i know i feel Jesus telling me to ask forgiveness. i do it. am i a christian?
Jake, I think you misrepresented Rob Bell from Velvet Elvis: Chapter 1.
He’s really just talking about the initial decision to follow Jesus. He never said that embracing a sinful lifestyle after deciding to follow Jesus is acceptable.
Doctrine is important, but overrated.
“Confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead.”
Jesus never asked someone about their doctrine before pronouncing them spiritually well. All they had to do was believe. And that’s all anyone has to do before deciding to follow Jesus. Anything else will be revealed to them through God’s Word as they study it.
Take a look at Paul, for instance. Most Free Will Baptists, even most Christians, would consider him the greatest missionary. Yet he told them about Christ, baptized them, and left them to figure out the doctrinal things for themselves. Yes, they would mess up, and he would write them a reprimanding/encouraging letter. But the majority of them worked out their own salvation.
It’s a scary thought that some have created a (lengthy) list that people must follow before they accept Christ as their Savior.
i heard a preacher (a fwb one at that) once tell a woman that was living with a boyfriend that she would have to move out and get her life right before she accept Jesus as her Savior. is this what Jesus taught the woman caught in the act?
i think that we’ve made too much of our own “doctrines.” [aren't all doctrines as we know them today man made anyways?].
who’s doctrine would they have to accept before coming to Jesus?
a oneness pentecostal doctrine?
a methodist doctrine?
a free will baptist doctrine?
why not let Jesus be the way the truth and the life.
why not let Jesus speak for himself. did he require anyone to go down to an alter? to cry for their sins? or “feel him asking me to ask for forgiveness”
also, i think that your review of velvet elvis does a great injustice to the book itself. did you just read the first chapter? was the book one chapter long?
do you really think that rob bell thinks that “our lifestyle” is a spring in our theology? what does our lifestyle have to do with the study of God?
Well Jacob, I have to agree with you on your views from Velvet Elvis. I think you accurately represented what Bell said. Jeremy, I do not believe that Jacob ever interpreted Bell’s comments to say that you can live a sinful lifestyle after conversion.
Bell seems to have almost a “new age” mentality in many respects. He devalues the importance of doctrine and speaks of the injustice on earth (poverty, war, etc…) as a bigger problem than Hell in the afterlife.
Bell has a mentality that life is about following Jesus, period. In principle that sounds great, but some problems follow when there is no foundation to gird that principle. For example, Bell mentions that when he started his church, they had no mission statement, no goals, no 5 year plan…their only purpose was following Jesus. Again, this sounds good in principle, but in reality this leaves no room for direction and no doctrinal guidance in the church. Bell seems to want a church and a faith without any structure or foundation, and that just doesn’t work.
I have a serious problem with some of Bell’s writings. Whether he is writing to convey his honest beliefs or just for shock value, his “trampoline” seems to have more holes in it than he may notice.
to finds hope outside fwb:
good questions. i do not know all the answers.
i have not finished Bell’s book. i question his thoughts because he encourages his readers to.
i believe i have a desire to change my lifestyle with the help of the Holy Spirit, in accordance with the Bible. i believe this process started when i accepted Jesus, not when i understood doctrine (frankly, i still don’t understand doctrine very well). i think Bell’s views are very interesting. honestly, i find them very appealing. however, that doesn’t mean i will jump into them. know what i mean?
i did not think bell was promoting lifestyle as a spring. i’m just saying, where does doctrine come in? chapter one does not promote the fact that salvation will produce a change. maybe he addresses this in a later chapter.
what do you feel is the role of doctrine in the life of a believer?
David mentioned that Bell’s idea of church just doesn’t work.
It’s hard to argue with the facts, though. Most FWB churches, sadly, are either declining or seeing very small growth. The NT church added to its number everyday.
Maybe Bell isn’t right on everything. But certainly we (FWB) can’t assume that we’re right all the time. Any church growth is worth at least taking a look at.
All truth is God’s truth. So let’s take things that are working in other churches (and that don’t go against Scripture) and use them in ours.
Well I certainly won’t argue that FWB churches have got all the answers or have been successful in doing everything right.
I think there is a medium between where we are and where Bell is that needs to be grasped. Traditionally, (that word can be used in many ways), FWBs have been anything but progressive. However, I do not believe that constantly referring to Jesus as our rabbi (Bell not only does this in his writings and videos but also his conferences) and viewing him as a religious activist leader is the right way to go.
For the record, I have read all of Velvet Elvis, most of it more than twice, and would be interested in engaging in conversation over the book with anyone who would like to.
This is a great peace once you abandon a theology of fear.
A few comments on here so far have really startled me.
“Doctrine is important, but overrated” ?
One of the biggest problems we are facing in the evangelical church today is the mentality that “Doctrine is important, but we think one’s relationship with Christ is the most important thing.”
Well isn’t that warm, and nice, and even biblical-sounding. Who wouldn’t admit that one’s relationship with Christ is important?
The problem is this. We draw a distinction between theology and our relationship with God. How do you draw closer to a person in a relationship? You talk to them, get to know them, find out what they like and don’t like, see what they expect of you, what they think of different things, what they’ve done in the past and why they did it. That sounds a whole lot like theology.
We have come to corrupt the definitions of both theology and doctrine. We define theology as some sort of super-specific academic discipline that only scholars should care about. Instead, theology is in reality simply the study of God. Doctrine simply means ‘instruction’ or ‘teaching.’
We cannot say that doctrine isn’t a big deal, but our relationship with God is.
By the way, I think it would do us all good to re-read John, Paul, Peter, and heaven forbid Jesus! They all seemed to care a whole lot about what people ought to think and believe about things.
i think you missed the point of our discussion JW. the entire thought process is that a relationship with Christ enduces a desire to learn more about God (your definition of theology). you even stated this, just in a different way. it’s important not to assume someone is saying something they’re not.
So who is Bell saying that believes a person must have a Th.M. before they’re saved?
I’ve done a lot of investigating into Rob Bell. My initial impression was good based on some of his thoughts from his Nooma series. However, based on some of the public statements he has made and even a few comments that have worked there way into his videos it seems that it is only a matter of time before he follows Maclaren’s gradual descent into theological liberalism.
Also, what exactly does doctrine is overrated mean?
P.S. induces*
By the way, once someone rejects the satisfaction view of atonement it is not terribly long before the view of a literal hell vanishes with it.
Forgive me, but it seems as though nobody has taken the time to define “doctrine” yet in this discussion. Jaded fundamentalists perceive doctrine as a legalistic pox to be avoided, while the more conservative writers see doctrine as a lifeline to God in a continually degrading world.
Princeton’s website defines doctrine as “a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school”
The ambiguity and inevitable dissension arises because certain “beliefs accepted as authority” were laid out fairly clearly (believe in Christ, be baptized, etc), the bible wasn’t written in annotated bullet points. It’s a collection of stories and letters and writings that hopefully show us God’s character. If we are in a right relationship with Him, we should eagerly lay hold of that knowledge. But sometimes we do so in our human understanding and lose sight of the God who did it in the first place. Read: relics.
So I don’t dislike doctrine. I believe that God wants us to know him and obey him, and a system of beliefs that lead us towards loving God and other people is a truly beautiful thing. But we must not cling so hard to a system of beliefs that we chase them off the firm foundation of Christ’s life like Wile-e-coyote and so lose the joy of our faith.