Thu 20 Oct 2005
A funny thing happened on the way to “postmodernism;” we fell into the trap of believing that we have to make Christianity “relevant” to the surrounding culture. Many argue that this is exactly what Paul was doing at the Areopagus, arguing from the “unknown god” to the God of the Bible (Acts 17:19-34). Others simply argue that tradition is stale and cold and people won’t come to Christ unless it’s comprehensible to them. Somewhere in between, Rob Bell argues in his book Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith that “Faith in Jesus must be repainted for each generation if it is to avoid the fate of his velvet Elvis.”
Taking his cue from a velvet Elvis painting in his basement, Bell cleverly argues that we must continually “repaint” Christianity lest it find the same fate and be left behind as a cultural relic. What a small god Bell must serve. I’m so glad that we have Bell here to keep the Creator of the Universe “in touch” and “relevant.” Pardon my sarcasm, but I’m more than slightly dismayed with this batch of believers who feel that Christianity must wear the carefully casual look of the hip and modern in order to gain a hearing.
In a piece appearing in the Dallas Star-Telegram, Bell “dismisses claims that “Scripture alone” will answer all questions. Bible interpretation is colored by historical context, the reader’s bias and current realities, he says.” While Bell is correct, to an extent, we do filter our understanding through our culture, Bell accepts rather than tries to overcome this and he forgets one important thing in the process: authorial intent. He seems to take the approach of so many Sunday School Teachers and Small Group Leaders of asking “what does this passage mean for you?” I don’t care what it means for you if it is not what the author (and Author) meant to communicate. When your culture filters your understanding, it’s time to transcend your culture rather than bringing Scripture down to its level.
The article goes on to say that, “Noting the Bible has been used to defend slavery and mistreat women, he writes, “sometimes when I hear people quote the Bible, I just want to throw up.” I share his sentiment. Bell applauds himself for “trying to free Jesus from the religion that’s built up around him” because “a lot of people are deeply fascinated with Jesus and just can’t do the Christian packages they’ve seen. Christianity is a little suspect, but Jesus, right on.”
While all of this sounds quite appealing, trying to free Jesus from wrong traditional constraints, what ends up happening is that Jesus is thus re-created in Bell’s (or whoever the current hipster might be) image, complete with his own proof-texted virtues.
Christianity is nothing less than living as Christ’s follower, and Bell, Donald Miller and others who refrain from using the word because of the baggage that comes with it are taking exactly the wrong approach. Christianity in its barest form will never be “culturally relevant,” no matter what clothes or candles you dress it up in.
What’s so ironic is that there are times when Bell seems to understand the folly of his “velvet Elvis analogy: in a Belief.net interview, Bell remarks that “I don’t follow Jesus because I think Christianity is the best religion. I follow Jesus because he leads me into ultimate reality.” Though he has set up a false dichotomy between following Jesus and Christianity, Bell is absolutely right that only in Jesus will or can we find Total Truth. Only in the shadow of Christ can we find the ultimate reality and finally understand things as they were meant to be. This is a bold message, and one that transcends cultural dress-up parties.
The problem is that we’ve robbed the Gospel of its power (Romans 1:16). God doesn’t need us to make Him “relevant.” If not even the gates of hell will prevail against God’s church, (Matthew 16:18), do we really think that it’s up to us to make sure “people can connect?” Our role is to boldly proclaim “repent and believe”(Mark 1:15) to a generation of God’s enemies (Romans 5:10) and that there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). This is a message that transcends culture, yet we have dragged down and convinced ourselves that we must keep it meaningful to a people who don’t want to hear it in the first place (Romans 3:9-12).
The Star-Telegram article closes by picturing Bell “sitting in the warehouse offices of Flannel, a nonprofit film company that has produced a series of short videos featuring Bell. In each, he delivers a faith-based message in the hip, witty style that has packed worshippers into Mars Hill.” I’m so glad that my ministry does not depend on “hip, witty style” but on the God who does as He pleases (Psalm 115:3), cannot be thwarted (Job 42:2), who will raise up His Church on the last day (John 6:39-40) and who doesn’t need me to keep him from growing dusty in the basement.
Read the Star-Telegram article.
Read Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith by Rob Bell.
Read a Belief.net interview with Rob Bell.
Visit the Mars Hill Church website.
Visit the Relevant Magazine website.
Download Just Because by Elvis Presley.
Download Let Me Be There (live) by Elvis Presley.
on 20 Oct 2005 at 9:16 pm 1.Mark Redfern said …
Boy, are people gonna be mad at you!
You hinted at Mars Hill Church. Have you read Mark Driscoll’s book? I have, and would love to get your thoughts if you have.
Some of what he says is helpful, but sometimes he makes me feel a little uneasy. The book definitely pushes on my pardigms. Do you think there is a difference between seeking to relevant and seek to rid your ministry of unhelpful, nonbiblical practices that are built solely on tradition and convenience?
on 20 Oct 2005 at 11:15 pm 2.Brent said …
It won’t be the first time people have been mad at me for something I’ve said!
I have not read Mark Driscoll’s book (though I am familiar with it), so I will refrain from comment at this point.
I absolutely think that there is a difference between seeking to be “relevant” and seeking to rid ministries of unnecessary traditions. That’s part of what makes this conversation so difficult. Some people, in arguing that we need to “repaint the Christian faith,” would simply mean that we need to drop anything based solely on tradition. However, Bell seems to hint at a highly subjective approach to the Scriptures, so what does he mean? I’m not sure, but when the article makes a point to point out how “hip and witty” he is, I have an idea of what he means (especially when his entire conversation is framed in the light of an old, unwanted painting).
The problem with striving to be “relevant” is that at root, you’re striving to be gain a hearing with people who don’t want to hear the Gospel, so at some point, the Gospel will be watered down. I’m not saying Bell is necessarily guilty of this, but many emergents are; it’s simply a re-packaging of the church growth movement.
The problem is that the Gospel (when faithfully preached) is offensive. Yet, we often make it more offensive than it needs to be by our approach; I agree here with much of what Bell and others are saying; we often stand in the way of the very message we claim to preach. But does that mean the Christian faith needs to be entirely “repainted,” or that we should adopt the term “Christian spirituality” rather than Christianity, I’m not so sure…
on 21 Oct 2005 at 9:02 am 3.Dave Newton said …
A family member believes that to be effective we must make the gospel “culturally revelant”. When asked to define the gospel he finally said that he could not. I think this is where you logically end up.
on 21 Oct 2005 at 11:35 am 4.Mark Redfern said …
Yeah, I agree. I appreciate the qualification regarding what it is you are trying to refine - your methods or your message.
I don’t like the phrase (which I have heard): “We are trying to remove unnecessary hinderances.” The word “hinderance” is misleading, because it sounds noble, but unfortunately most people take the “offensiveness” out of the message. So, biblica (and gospel) words like wrath, sin, judgment, hell and others are tossed out in the name of “removing unnecessary hinderances.” This is world’s apart from merely thinking about, say…should we stop saying “brethren” from the pulpit and instead say “brothers and sisters?” (Just a personal preference and some jargon that could probably be substituted for something more relevant).
You are so right about seeing to it that we seek to take the right manner in our evangelism. We need to be sure we are being Christ-like listeners and question-askers instead of needlessly getting in the way of the gospel and its proclamation by being rude to those made in God’s image.
on 21 Oct 2005 at 7:51 pm 5.Vinnie Beichler said …
Good stuff here, guys. I can’t really add anything to what you guys have already said, except to quote Paul in 1 Corinthians 1
17 “For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. 18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written, 20 Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. 22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 26 For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; 28 God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, 29 so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. 30 He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom and our righteousness and sanctification and redemption. 31 Therefore, as it is written, Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”
Sounds like our friend, Mr. Bell, skipped over this one in preparing for writing his article “boasting” about how “hip and witty” he is. Turns out the gospel itself was offensive for Jews and Greeks. Why didn’t Paul repackage the thing to make it less offensive? Apparently Paul was just behind the times… Not to be too harsh. :)
on 29 Oct 2005 at 12:52 pm 6.Leslie said …
Hi, I was doing a search on Rob Bell and came accross your post. I’m not sure if you will read this, because in the blogging world, this post is old news.
Have you listened to Rob Bell’s sermons, especially the Directions 2.0 series. http://www.mhbc.com? Whatever your thoughts on the book, the sermon series hardly characterizes a pastor who is a relativist or one who doesn’t take a stand. The problem may be that his interpretation of the Gospel “offends” the wrong people.
Anyway, I “poked” around on your sight, you are so much more studied in the areas of theology than I am, so I ,well, I don’t probably have a place in this discussion.
But, interestingly, I just finished reading a couple of chapters in Donald Miller’s newest book “Searching for God knows what” very interesting stuff on John and Genesis. I don’t think you should be to hard on him, he’s trying to be a witness at Reed College in Portland, Oregon. His job is hard enough as it is.
By the way, my husband and I really enjoyed the camp ground at Tres Rios in GlenRose. Beautiful little town.
on 29 Oct 2005 at 1:41 pm 7.Brent said …
Leslie;
Thank you so much for taking the time to “poke around,” you certainly have a place in this and every conversation. I have not listened to the sermons by Rob Bell, I will have to do that. I certainly don’t mean to be hard on him or Miller.
There is an issue with both of these men though to make it seem as if it’s up to us to make the Gospel “relevant,” which I’m extremely uncomfortable with. If we truly believe that the Gospel is the Word of God, then no amount of our window-dressing will make it “hip” or “cool,” but that is exactly what they seem to be striving for.
If you’re ever back in Glen Rose we’d love to have you worship with us!
Thanks again;
Brent
on 12 Feb 2006 at 11:11 am 8.Brannon said …
Quick note: The Mars Hill of Mark Driscoll and The Mars Hill of Rob Bell aren’t the same church. I thought that may clarify some things. Overall, Mark Driscoll is much more careful and outspoken about solid theology.
on 12 Feb 2006 at 11:57 am 9.Brent said …
True, thank you for that qualification. I wasn’t even aware of Mark Driscoll at the time, so I obviously didn’t clarify, so thank you for pointing that out!