As someone who's reading through Velvet Elvis now, I'll take a shot at listing what I've seen. It'll be a little stream of consciousness, because I haven't gotten through the whole book yet. And I won't reference Bell's NOOMA stuff, because though I haven't been impressed by what I've seen thus far, I haven't seen enough to speak on it.
Fundamentally, I think the problem with Bell is that he'll say things that sound profound, and could be true and defensible, but that are so vague or contradictory or absent of definition that they actually could mean anything (I'd say "koan-like" but it'd beg the question). And his own applications of those sayings don't seem orthodox.
(This actually leads to another issue I have with Bell: his fondness for equivocation. In "Bricks" he talks about questioning teachings of Christianity, and how we shouldn't be afraid to do it. I would agree that everyone has a theological grid of beliefs, and one should be open to beings shown by Scripture that the grid is wrong in some part. That's basic hermeneutics. But Bell's hypothetical example goes beyond interpretation; it would contradict the inerrancy of Scripture. And while Bell may believe that doesn't matter to the "way of Jesus," Paul seemed pretty convinced that it did in 1 Cor 15. Christianity is based on historical events; if those are false, then there is no Christianity, and frankly you'd be better off with the Tao Te Ching; it'd be more consistent.)
It may not be what you're looking for--not too specific to new-age stuff, but it's what I've seen, and I think there are definitely echoes of eastern and universalist teachings in it.
Okay, I see what you’re saying. I think you’re reaching a bit here and there, though.
I read it about six months ago, and I borrowed it, so I can’t reference anything directly now.
But as for your first point- does he actually say that the Gospel ‘has nothing to do with sin, judgment, grace, salvation through Christ’s sacrifice’? Or does he simply talk about living a Christian lifestyle in terms of ‘being generous, compassionate, peaceful, etc.’ As you said, there’s nothing uniquely Christian about them, but if one’s intent is to demionstrate the love of God by doing such things, I have no problem. In fact, there are an awful lot of Christians who think that saying the right words is enough, while they neglect such obligations. Talk is cheap.
Point 2- I actually think the rhema is in fact more important than the logos, in terms of our daily life with God. Now, if we don’t know the written Word of God, we’re just being irresponsible since it’s so easily available to us. But communication with the Lord on a moment to moment basis is how our faith is built and sustained. Example- when Paul was planting churches, those believers had no Bible. They had very limied access to a Torah, if they were Jewish. Gentiles had no previous knowledge of Abraham, Moses, David, etc. All they had was the Holy Spirit, each other, and Paul himself and other workers on a limited basis. So God effected the beginnings of the church not on a daily experience with the logos, but rather the rhema.
I think point three is just an extreme example, to the level of absurdity, to make a point. After all, what do we do if it’s proven that the earth is more than 6000 years old? Abandon our faith? Not a chance.
Anyway, I’m not defending Rob Bell, I don’t know the guy, I wouldn’t attend his church, and I only ever read one book by him. I guess I just get tired of religious Christians overreacting to every guy who talks about God and isn’t from Dallas Theological Seminary.