Velvet Bell: Repainting Cartesian Anxiety

As the title implies I will be looking at Rob Bell and some of his statements in his book Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith. But first I want to establish some lines of thought. In too many mediums there is very little time to make a point. Fortunately, blogging allows for much more time and space to think things through so I ask for some latitude before I get to my critique.

"I think therefore I am," was the famous revelation of Rene Descartes after he decided to stuff himself into a stove to cut off his senses. I cannot doubt that I am thinking without first positing an "I" to begin with. From this axiom he set out his defense for Theism and other postulates. Not long after his declaration came a startling revelation from some in the philosophical community: There is no good reason to assume that thinking requires a thinker. What? In a note of irony, after I wrote that sentence, my daughter asked me what time it was and when I told her, she said, "Oh good that means it's time to take my watch off." The irony was lost on her. I wonder if it was lost on those who who said thinking requires no thinker. Their point was not that thinking was not CAUSED by a thinker, but rather that in order for there to be substance there must actually be something there that was material, some "datum" (As Frederick Copleston puts it in his History of Philosophy Vol. 4). If this required thinking then Descartes must have been assuming a substantive, materialistic existence. How does it follow that he need a material body for this to be the case? I can point to things in the world and question whether they exist, but what happens when I point at "I"? Would I not have to say "it" like every other object that can be doubted? "I" comprises much more than "it" so thinking is not a necessary component for existence, the "I" could be an illusion and therefore is not necessarily a self referential object. Perhaps humans could be an apparatus for which thoughts from another occur. Regardless of the viability of these claims the point is that the methodological doubt of Descartes, known as Cartesian Anxiety, demonstrates that what it takes to establish warranted knowledge is far more rigorous than what it takes to establish warranted belief.

In fact, beliefs/worldviews commonly precede knowledge (although there are occasions where they are lateral). If a Materialist and a Buddhist are having a conversation the Materialist could present a cup of water the Buddhist could claim it is an illusion. The Materialist could say that it was actually hydrogen and oxygen molecules. The Buddhist could then retort that they also were illusions. No matter where the discussion leads from there, the history of scientific progress, feelings, what ever, there must come a point where the conditions and the constituent components of the worldview are examined and determined to be internally consistent to tell us if it is an accurate summation of what it claims to represent as the truth. Does it have sufficient explanatory power? Is it logically coherent? Can one live consistently with the view they claim is true (existential consistency)? At some point some things must be assumed to be true, even if it can't be proven to be true. The question will have to be if it is a warranted belief. It is my contention that historical Christianity meets the above criterion with satisfaction better than any other worldview. I do not believe that it is in need of retooling or a Cartesian process. Rob Bell disagrees with this assertion. To repaint a worldview is to bring challenges to the consistencies of its assumptions. The assumptions are its foundations, its doctrines. If the doctrines are off the worldview is in jeopardy. If its foundations are contradictory it is a false worldview. I love the example of Ravi Zacharias who said that if you go to a border patrol agent and give him contradictory answers about where you are going you can expect him to believe you have falsified your destination and he would be right to think so. Worldviews do not get a pass and this includes Christianity. Contradictions imply falsehood and when we challenge our doctrines we need to have good reasons. This does not mean that we can answer every question or that we can't have doubts. What I am arguing for is that we can assume our position to be true while we explore the validity of its assertions. Is this not expected of all who love thought? This is what Rob Bell is claiming that he is doing, I disagree. I believe he is whittling away foundational components to the Christian worldview. I am not guessing what his motives are. I may guess at them if I feel he has tipped his hand or I'm confused in some way, but to guess at his motives and not dealing with his thoughts is ad hominem; don't mistake some of my musings on his motives as a substitute or even a supplement to his arguments, unless I give a reason why I think it is important.

In "Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith," Rob Bell does not explicitly come down on a side opposite of historic Christianity. I believe that this is the net effect. His thoughts are exoteric so I'm confident that even if you have not read his book you may still gain from reading this post. I do recommend reading it though, it is well written and entertaining. I would like to mention that I have read other reviews of this book and I think much of the criticisms levied are unfair. I will try to show when he qualifies a statement and why I think it does or does not work.

If you doubt the validity of my diatribe about Rob Bell's Cartesian efforts just read the back of the book, "We have to test everything." He won't test everything in this work, from the title of the book one can tell what he'll be testing, rather he is appealing to the need to doubt. Why? What do we gain from this? I'm not saying he's wrong, but he gives no reason for why this should be. Does he mean we should be cynics? Cautious? What? Forgive me for critiquing what he has chosen to put on the back of his book, but this is an apologetic for his work and I think very informative. He goes on, "I thank God for anybody anywhere who is pointing people to the mysteries of God. But those people would all tell you to think long and hard about what they are saying and doing and creating." Obviously, fallacious comments in defense of a treatise does not give one confidence that the content will be stellar. There is no group of people where all will do the same thing, even if that thing is good. There are plenty who would not invite critical thought. I wish Rob Bell was right here, but he is not. The list at the end makes one wonder: What are these people creating? Are we creating doctrine? Doctrine that might not even be true about God until we establish it as humans? Even if it is true doctrine, perhaps we can live without it just like people who lived without it before. I'm not assuming here, I am summing up some of his thought in the early pages, and it seems to fit in his defense. He goes on to tell us to think critically about his book (we should be doing that for all books anyway) and that he is simply contributing to a conversation. I wonder if he thinks, and of course I don't know, that our culture is so touchy about Christianity that it requires him to convince his reader that he is not like what our culture is rejecting: Christians who think they can know about God. Sound Post-Modern? Again, these are the foundations of our worldview and are substantiated within the view (if it has sufficient explanatory power), not by social opinion. There is some ground that once given up moves from Christian to Post-Christian. Sure you can call it Christian, but once investigated it cannot be factually consistent with biblical or historical Christianity once its roots are denied. I will further demonstrate that once its fundamentals are disturbed it is subject to attacks from other views and is thus synthesized into an illogical pluralism as the Hegelian assumptions are inserted to retain a misplaced notion that it can somehow be valuable among a myriad of options. Finally, in a hallmark move for Bell he states, "God has spoken, and the rest is commentary, right?" So, we must test everything, does this include the statement that God has spoken? He assumes God's existence and that he has spoken. Is he trying to appeal to the unbeliever that they will find answers or to Christians that he has not abandoned to faith. I don't know, however, I believe that neither is true. One cannot maintain the Christian worldview and undermine it at the same time. It is so subtle I can imagine a believing Christian not having one problem with anything he writes, which is what led me to write this. There is certain ground that worldviews cannot give up on. They must maintain the assumptions. They can be attacked and defended, but to reinterpret them is another ballgame. It is a subtle attack with potentially good intentions and yet damaging, thus requiring a defense (despite Bell's objections to defending the faith in chapter 1). I will be spending most of my analysis on the introduction for the rest of his argument is founded there and builds upon the premise he attempts to establish. I believe it finds no cerebral purchase and appeals to emotion.

INDOCTRODUCTION

In his indoctrination/introduction Bell seems quite interested in the mystery of God, but Bell himself is a mystery. What are his goals in this work? To be honest, this is what makes him such an engaging writer. He captures your interest. The problem is that the subject is so important that one wonders whether he is being cryptic as a writing style or if he wants to keep his cards close to his vest. I will explore this more as we proceed. Sometimes he uses cult tactics. What do I mean by "cult tactics." Cults are the masters of ambiguity. Ever have a talk with a Mormon missionary? One may think they believe the exact same thing about God as any Christian. But they don't. They believe in something radically different, and they have fooled many in the process. Let me give an example of how Bell does this:

"The challenge for Christians then is to live with great passion and conviction, remaining open and flexible, aware that this life is not the last painting [pg.11]."

Why should this be a challenge? I am flexible as a Christian parent, but I have convictions as well. Not too hard to separate the wheat from the shaft there. But maybe he is talking about something else, maybe he is talking about what it means to have convictions in the first place, say, oh, I don't know... doctrinal convictions? This would be a challenge, especially if your going to have to reinterpret what you once thought God was all about or, more to the point, if you thought the bible presented sufficient information and now were going to have to reinterpret some of those things. And maybe if your not willing to let some of these historical interpretations go, well then, maybe your not what it really means to be a Christian. But I digress, let Bell speak for himself.

"The Christian faith tradition is filled with change and growth and transformation [pg.11]." He is picking up on a question that few have challenged. Because we see progress in some areas does it follow that all aspects in human life engage in progress? I was talking to a friend who said that the Old Testament violates all of our modern notions of ethics. Anyone who can be quoted as saying "modern notions of ethics" knows very little about ethics. One of the challenges of ethics is trying to find a static rule by which ethics may engage. Obviously Christianity has no problem there, but secular ethics are trying hard to get out of forms of relativism because it cannot deliver the authoritative goods that ethics demands. The evidence for my friends progress? Human knowledge. So if there is progress in one part of the human experience there must be progress in all parts? This is a violation of the law of the excluded middle. Just because things are similar in some ways, human experience, it does not follow that they are the same in all ways, progress. More to the point, because the Christian life is filled with some changes it does not follow that there are broader changes required. This is the language of the cults. Get one hooked on some ideas and if the masses nod their head in agreement, then maybe they will follow the rest of your ideas, even if it leads to places one would normally consider mistaken. For the record, I don't believe that Mars Hill is a cult, but Bell's argumentation are full of the same rhetorical tactics that cults use and I need to be honest about that.

This next section in the introduction is well worth taking note of because it will be a guiding principle for the rest of Bell's book. "Times change... and the Christian faith is alive only when it is listening, morphing, innovating, letting go of whatever has gotten in the way of Jesus [pg.11]" Its funny, I recall a time when Christianity WAS the agent for change, now, in our time, it is not a world tainted by sin that needs to change, now IT is our barometer for how Christianity should be. And notice how he carefully weaves a dichotomy for us that if we don't change, then we are not really following Jesus. Again, on the surface, this could be a true statement, but the question is, what? What is it that needs to change? After all, I don't want anything to get in my way when it comes to Jesus. If one allows the direction the book is already going to be how one should think, one will end up worshiping something completely different than what the bible prescribes. You will change, but the greatest change the world has ever seen will be moving on the direction it has been for the last 2,000 years and it will be you that is left behind.

IN CHURCH HISTORY THERE HAS BEEN CHANGE

THEREFORE CHANGE IS WHAT GOD WANTS

So Bell continues his Cartesian Anxiety (excuse the hyperbole) toward Christian doctrine. On the Reformation, "Shedding unnecessary layers and at the same time rediscovering essentials that had been lost [pg.11]." What were the "unnecessary layers?" And what was he "rediscovering?" Conveniently, Bell doesn't say so I will tell you. He equates the reformation with doctrinal change which it wasn't, this was about ecclesiastical change and doctrinal RECONSTITUTION. There was doctrine that had been instituted that Luther was obviously opposed to, but he didn't progress doctrine, he reestablished it. It is a very important distinction. One that he glosses over and hopes you will forget about as he continues to establish his methodological doubt. Was there doctrinal change at the reformation? You bet. Was it progressive? Absolutely not! Given his assumptions in this section of the book one would think that Bell thought that the doctrine was right when it was the doctrine that was being enforced at the time. But Bell is a smart guy, he must know that this type of induction is absurd. Maybe he doesn't actually believe that the Reformation was about God's doctrines at all, maybe he thinks they are all man made. Was Luther wrong? Bell doesn't say, Luther was just a part of change and change is what really matters. Even if the supposed change was actually reconstituting biblical doctrine, this is nonsense. What Bell really wants is for us to think that change is more important than doctrine, if doctrine changes so what? At least there was change and change is our guide for determining if we are close or far from Jesus. On the heels of the Reformation he puts his cards on the table and admits that the changes he wants to make are theological and that they will be about the bible, salvation, Jesus, and the future. What happened to his admission that the reformation was "rediscovering what had been lost?" It is missing in the rest of his argument. Should we not be making sure that we also preserve what the reformers had rediscovered? Apparently that is not as important as change. Has he established that this is actually what God wants from us? Is there warrant in church history, no. Has he given good philosophical reasons, no. Biblical, no. Soteriological, no. Theological, no. All he gave us was a partial version of the Reformation that should have actually been an example for honoring and preserving the bible and a Velvet Elvis in his basement. I have all kinds of worthless crap in my basement too, can I write a book about that? So, Bell's introduction is really a seminal effort to indoctrinate into a mind set that change=following Jesus, and his argument is that there have been changes and that means change may be the single most important thing within Christendom. This is based on a violation of the law of the excluded middle: because there have been changes (historical and existential) it does not mean that change is what matters. Additionally, he appeals to emotion by pitting the act of following Christ against static doctrine. This, of course, is not necessarily the case. If he can get you to feel that this is the error your making then perhaps you will change your mind about things you otherwise wouldn't. See why I think this has cult elements to it? The bible as a guide is not even a secondary thought even though he quotes from it throughout Velvet Elvis. Why not change to the point of ignoring what is quoted? Perhaps that is a little too Cartesian.

My last comment on the introduction covers some important ground.

"I don't mean cosmetic, superficial changes like better lights and music... I mean theology [pg.12]."

"The painting works for their parents ... it is no longer relevant... it doesn't have anything to say to the world they live in every day. It's not that there isn't any truth in it or that all the people before them were misguided or missed the point. It's just that every generation has to ask the difficult questions of what it means to be a Christian here and now, in this place, in this time. And if this... isn't done, where does the painting end up? In the basement [pg.13]." Oh no! That's where the Velvet Elvis is! Anywhere but there! Since he is not talking about cosmetic changes, why does he use an example from aesthetics? What is the painting in this scenario? Theology? Doctrine? He has already established that it was not aesthetic. He contradicts himself when he states that their parents are not misguided, if the doctrine needs to change then how could it have been right at any time? For example, the Trinity. How will this change today? I think it is possible that by being a synthetic theologian (common among post modern thinkers) that he has a hard time recognizing that contradiction is highlighting falsehood. If God is perfect then it means there is no potentiality in him, he is actual. If he is actual then he cannot change for perfection does not lead to the possibility for change. I have used this illustration before, but it will help here. If you are painting my house and I said you did a perfect job and then began to paint over the house or remove paint, then the reality of perfection was never realized, there was some potential for change remaining. Since God is perfect there is no such potential. So what was true for my parents was true for them and true for their parents and so on. And since the change is not cosmetic then he is left with the change he said he was gunning for which is doctrinal, like the trinity or virgin birth. Truth is not relative, otherwise its just opinion. "If it is true, then it isn't new [pg.14]." So the contradictions are clear. Also, he is using a false analogy. Doctrine is not the same as art. Doctrine is about what is true, art is about aesthetics. Art can very much be a product of its own time and become outdated. Doctrine cannot. It is either true or false. There is no room for change. What may express those truths could change, but that is not what he's talking about. He tried to make his example as malleable as possible which in turn makes it very deceptive, but the example is not an effective smoke screen, his claim is that doctrine is true when it is declared true for its own generation. This would mean that God changes and is not perfect and in turn makes him a God far from worthiness of worship. He is like the Mormon god or a pantheistic god that is subject to fault. If doctrine is true in its own time then the churches that abandoned the Jews in the 1930's Germany were not at fault, they just changed with the tide. Can Rob Bell really stand for this to be our conclusion, that doctrine is true in its own time? Too bad Dietrich Bonhoeffer didn't have a Velvet Elves to teach him how to fit in with the times. Why won't he just say that he thinks the bible has false doctrine? I will give him the benefit of the doubt and say it is due to his irrational postmodernism, but I'm tempted to believe that he thinks this will discredit him among Christians, but take that with a grain of salt, I can't know his motives for sure.

A Postmodernist always needs a handful of contradictions to qualify their statements, to cover their tracks as it were. He thanks God for those churches that don't want to change and then basically says that its only true for them, this book is for a fresh look at Jesus. What will that fresh look be? It will be doctrinal disguised as arbitrary jostling for a new time and a new people. Frankly, I think that this is not biblical Christianity. I think to believe that the bible is the word of God, his revelation and truth, is in conflict with the teaching of Rob Bell. It is well disguised no doubt, but it is not biblical Christianity. As we move on I will have to demonstrate the value of infallibility and innerancy of scripture and the logical consequences of rejecting these positions. You can bet it will entail a collapse of a worldview. It's really not even methodological doubt so much as it is an effort to be open even if it means rejecting what is true. Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith is a light, implicit, pseudo-Cartesian methodological doubt, with the fatally flawed Hegelian Dialectic as his apparatus. It is about rejecting doctrine on the one hand and replacing it in the other, then, claiming that your honoring it all. Welcome to Rob Bell's Velvet Elvis, an experiment in Postmodern Christianity.