We can (and must) interpret what the Bible says, at times it is quite clear (i.e. the virgin birth) at other times it is more difficult (the souls of unborn children) – but regardless we are always interpreting and there is always a degree of certainty we can claim on our interpretations. To consider some doctrines as springs may be acceptable yet to consider all truth (represented in doctrines) as springs undermines this certainty we can have. All doctrines are not created equal. We won’t know all truth in full in this life, but that doesn’t mean that we can’t know any truth.

I fear the analogy that a truth (or true doctrine) is expendable is inherent in Bell’s analogy. And this attempt to separate the truth from how it is expressed is a step towards undermining our confidence in the Bible as a whole – God chose to reveal truth using language – God chose a medium for expressing truth, and that alone should give us confidence that on some level we can do the same, and that is the foundation for our confidence in doctrines that express truth.

Bell isn’t looking to undermine people’s confidence in the Bible, but I think it may be a consequence nonetheless. He says he affirms orthodox truth, and that is great (and often I believe he truly does and teaches the same), but that statement comes after an argument to dismantle the idea of orthodoxy. Orthodoxy is based on the existence of foundational truth – bricks, not springs. And we need not be uncomfortable with the idea of orthodox truth, it has a rich history. Orthodox truth has it’s roots in the teaching of Christ (Sermon on the Mount – Matt. 5-7).

I think the issue that Bell is reacting to is that we are at times to quick to call something a brick. And in that respect he may be right, but the answer is not to stop calling things bricks.

Good discussion on this post. I’ve enjoyed it (even if I came across it 10 months after it began)

Its been a long time since I read the book and I couldn’t find it in order to verify, but if I remember correctly, in his example of the virgin birth, he asked if it would truly change our faith had Mary not been a virgin – and concludes that it would not – he did not conclude that Mary wasn’t a virgin.

I think this ability to be open to examination is very valuable in today’s generation – if for no other reason than today’s generation resists dogma (things that *are not willing* to be changed regardless of evidence).

When I was in Bible College, I learned something very important – ‘It’s not true BECAUSE its in the Bible; Its in the Bible BECAUSE its is true’. This way of looking at our faith allows us to ‘remove’ the brick/spring/[insert favorite fruit here] from the group and take a real good look at it in order to find the truth.

Bell also said in the book – all truth is God’s truth. If I thought the Earth was 6000 years old based on the Bible, and you proved through science that it was 4trillion years old – My understanding of the Bible changes – not my faith. And I believe that is the point of his approach.

I think you may be reading his book in context of his personal ministry, which might help you to understand how he applies the concepts to his church – but don’t throw the baby out with his bath water. The ability to take a good long look at any doctrine or dogma in light of new information gives you credibility with this generation and allows you an opportunity to minister to them – it doesn’t remove anything from you faith creating your tarp…

“I affirm the historic Christian faith, which includes the virgin birth and the Trinity and the inspiration of the Bible and much more.”
-velvet elvis, pg 27

If you are going to challenge something Rob Bell says, fine. Furthering the dialogue is part of the process. But do it in a relevant fair way. It saddens me to see that so many people shut themselves off to the insightful things Bell has to offer because of out of context sound bytes.

Rob,
My problem is Bell didn’t use those examples(playing cards and dancing) he used the virgin birth. That is a dogma so I think either he really believes that these truths are not necessary and Christianity is reduced to moralism or he used that example to get attention for his book. I don’t really like either answer. I agree Christians have taken cultural issues and tried to make them dogma and I don’t advocate that. I will stand for the dogma’s of the faith and the fact of the matter is Bell tosses them out as not important when Paul says the facts of Jesus life according to the scriptures are of first importance.

The gospel is a revealed truth, it his historical and Bell reduces it to moralism as a ‘new way of living’ I believe there is a way to live as a result of your salvation but that isn’t the ‘first thing’ Paul talks about. He said if anyone including an angel comes preaching another doctrine than what has been already been preached to you (Christ and him crucified) he is to be accursed.

The Gospel is good news not good advice. News is an announcement of something that has already happened, not instruction on a new way of living.

I heard a popular TV preacher, just a few months ago, railing on tattoos in a sermon to thousands. So, a young person who is genuinely seeking the truth walks into that church to hear this. They will feel excluded and walk out saying, “Oh well, I guess I can’t be a part of that group.”

The Church in America has isolated itself in its beautiful buildings with flashy programs that are largely irrelavent. We use the idea of “we can’t work our way to heaven(which is true)” to justify NOT doing good things for those around us, especially the disenfranchised and poor. We’ve abandoned the inner cities to build massive churches in the suburbs.

I hope this message makes sense.

I hope you don’t really think true and accurate doctrine is impossible, while they may not be complete I would hope God’s word provides true and accurate doctrines.