So there was this quote making its rounds on the internet from a book called “Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith” written by Rob Bell. (I say ‘making its rounds’ because the internet is a series of tubes… in case you didn’t know. Listen to the whole thing – it’s worth it) Bell sets up a metaphor where faith is a trampoline, and the springs “aren’t God…aren’t Jesus… [they] are statements and beliefs about our faith that help give words to the depths that we are experiencing in our jumping. I would call these the doctrines of our faith.”
The quote that’s been drawing fire goes like this:
What if tomorrow someone digs up definitive proof that Jesus had a real, earthly, biological father named Larry, and archaeologist find Larry’s tomb and do DNA samples and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the virgin birth was really just a bit of mythologizing the Gospel writers threw in to appeal to the followers of the Mithra and Dionysian religious cults that were hugely popular at the time of Jesus, whose gods had virgin births?
Questions. Big questions, right?
Was Jesus born of a virgin?
What if…?
But what if, as you study the origin of the word “virgin” you discover that the word “virgin” in the gospel of Matthew actually comes from the book of Isaiah, and then you find out that in the Hebrew language at that time, the word “virgin” could mean several things. And what if you discover that in the first century being “born of a virgin” also referred to a child whose mother became pregnant the first time she had intercourse?
What if that spring were seriously questioned? Could a person keep on jumping? Could a person still love God? Could you still be a Christian? Is the way of Jesus still the best possible way to live? Or does the whole thing fall apart?
If the whole faith falls apart when we reexamine and rethink one spring then it wasn’t that strong in the first place, was it?
What if… Mary wasn’t a virgin in the way we understand it? The way you handle this question determines how you read this book.
Questions and Metaphors
All metaphors have their limits of course. They are much like cars – they all eventually break down. In my own limited metaphor, the string of reason and doctrine tethers the kite of faith and consequent action. Lose the kite and the string falls limp; lose the string and the tension and restraint that allows the kite to fly is gone. Freed from its tether, the kite may initially surge upwards, but it eventually returns to the ground, no longer capable of flight.
Reading the book brought to mind a few questions of my own, and I will try to be kind and careful in asking them. Bible scholar Ben Witherington has set the bar with his balanced critique of Rob’s book in his post “Velvet Elvis and the King’– Has he Left the Building?” I want to follow his lead here but I have to admit that I am more disturbed by the content of this book than he is.
Buy the book here and read it for yourself.
********************
This is Part 1 of 5 in the series Smashing Brickworld. Go to Part 2.
Go to the series index page. This page contains other links and the option to download the series in one Word of PDF file.
Related posts:
- Smashing Brickworld: Rob Bells Velvet Elvis – Part 3 What is lost? Ultimately the question raised by the quote is this: What do we lose if we lose the virgin birth? I will attempt...
- Smashing Brickworld: Rob Bell’s "Velvet Elvis" – Part 2 The Good I commend Bell for encouraging an eschatological shift from a “when we get over yonder” to a “let’s bring heaven here” theology. He...
- Smashing Brickworld: Rob Bell’s "Velvet Elvis" – Part 4 Trampoline vs. Brickworld The opposite of Bell’s trampoline metaphor of faith is what he calls “brickworld”. In brickworld, “you spend a lot of time talking...
- Smashing Brickworld: Rob Bell’s "Velvet Elvis" – Part 5 Binding and Loosing Jesus gave his disciples power: “I will give you the keys to the kingdom…” (Matt 16 and 18). Bell sees this as...
- Vulnerable and Authentic (Bailey Book Study – Part 3) These posts will be a series of study notes and questions for the book that our Life Group is studying together. The book is “Upsidedown”...
I’m interested in where you are going with this… does seem to have a tone that is more interested in correcting him though; suggesting having better theology is more important than being freed by the truth found in Christ’s teachings and Christ himself.
Being open to all peoples views is key to growing as a Christian. Rob Bell has his ideas and his views, as do any teachers, Ministers, preachers, rabbis or whatever you like to call them. I like the book it is well written and is a very wise book, I like to think I am wise enough and bright enough to sift the wheat from the chaff to use a metaphor as you seem to like them.
Each Church or bible study is only ever a persons interpretation on what they get from a passage, so at the end of a sermon or whatever, you go away and sift it and decide for yourself what you want to take from it, and a book is no different. Slate it if you wish, but I believe with some wise discernment you can learn from it.
I’ll have to look at the links later. But I like the question you left on my site. Thanks for contributing.
Thanks for the advice! I checked out the Whitherington blog and learned alot from what he had to say! I appreciate the follow through. Thanks again!
Had time to read your post better and the link to Witherington. A couple of questions.
Did Rob Bell say that Christ wasn’t born of a virgin?
What was the real point he was trying to get us to look at?
the real point that Rob Bell is putting in this section of the book is that we need to be flexible with our doctrines. Earlier in the chapter there was a man who believed that if you don’t believe in a literal 6 day creation then you don’t believe in Jesus. Or something along that line.
What I believe Rob’s point is simply that. We need to be able to keep “jumping” on this trampoline, even if one of the “springs” is totally changed, or destroyed by facts, science, whatever there is to prove something. That’s where the “what if” question came from that is quoted in this post.
One has to remember though that Rob Bell is part of the Emerging Church movement, which is a bit postmodern. I wish I had links to give for people to check out and decide for themselves on it, but *shrugs* I don’t. Just a few thoughts. I think I will like hearing people’s opinions on this book.
NOTE TO ALL
If you interested in discussion (as I am) please find your way to the Google group.
http://groups.google.com/group/smashingbrickworld
The discussion has already started and I’d love to see you there.
Michael Krahn
Aaron,
I figured since Rob has just gone to great lengths to correct my understanding of Christian history, I can at least respond where I think he might be off a little. ;-)
I don’t understand your statement about “having better theology”… theology, according to Mr. Webster is “the study of religious faith, practice, and experience; especially : the study of God and of God’s relation to the world.” Isn’t “having better theology” exactly what Rob’s book is about?
So, where we disagree, yes one of us is probably correcting the other, but what is the alternative?
Cheers.
davie B,
No doubt there is some wise discernment in the book. I guess I feel compelled to respond to some parts because
a) he is having a lot of influence
b) I am quite uncomfortable with a number of portions of the book.
c)The level of “fan” attention Rob gets is a bit alarming. Not that that is his fault or that he encourages it but surf a few blog entries about the book. There doesn’t seem to be a lot of sifting going on.
Essentially that is what I’m trying to do here. I am trying to take the “help me find clarity” route here by talking to those who are his, for lack of a better word, “fans”.
It is a good thing to sift and decide for yourself, but not everyone can and not everyone does.
Hey Roland,
Did Rob Bell say that Christ wasn’t born of a virgin? No, of course not.
What was the real point he was trying to get us to look at? The point he’s trying to make that we must be open to critical evaluation of our doctrines. With this I have no argument.
He falls short, in my view, by casting doubt on a subject but not following through.
Could I still be a Christian if the virgin conception was seriously questioned and re-evaluated? YES.
Could I still be a Christian if the virgin conception was proved without a doubt to be a hoax? No, I don’t think I could. Or at least there would be a long period of adjustment and re-evaluation.
Think of all the things it would change…
He may fall short on that Michael, because he wants each person to be able to make that decision.
I’ve been in a church where it is made for you. I was becoming more and more like a Pharisee. Not good. I am not there anymore, and wish that no one would have to go through it. Even still, I know God was growing me through the trial.
Keep testing the springs. I am glad I read the book. It has helped me understand myself and others better. And how to better express Christ to others.
Again, I like that you don’t just swallow it whole. There are a couple of areas that I don’t completely agree with myself. But I won’t throw out the book because of a couple of points. I try to look at it through a Phillipians 4:8 lens.
Happy Easter!
There have been times in which I have wanted to scream at this book and throw it across the room. It has challenged me though.
I agree that his follow through on the virgin birth comments was wanting, but I am glad that affirmed his belief in the doctrine.
Both Ben Witherington and Scot McKnight have critized Bell in his use of Jewish sources. One being that he doesn’t seem to be very careful about the source he is using and 2. He is using a faulty assumption about Jewish history to guide him in his exgesis of the Gospels. The Rabbanical sources were not at play in Jesus’ day. So the whole chapter on Dust as well as, the NOOMA video dust while it has some good things to say is centered around faulty assumptions. Also the way he interprets Jesus saying “my yoke is easy, and burden is light” by what “yoke” meant to rabbis (their teachings) is faulty as well. I believe he was talking about a literal yoke in a metaphorical sense. Anyway, not a major deal, but it does show that Bell has a long way to go in his own studies.
I am going to close the comments.
If you interested in discussion (as I am) please find your way to the Google group.
http://groups.google.com/group/smashingbrickworld
If you do not wish to discuss there email me at:
michael@michaelkrahn.com