Smashing Brickworld - The discussion falls short

[in...@nickcarnes.com]

I believe that the part one of this discussion about Rob Bell's Velvet
Elvis has fallen short from the very beginning. In fact one of the
biggest controversies surrounding this book are focused around this
question that you have posed in part one from Rob Bell, however I
think it does the discussion a disservice by leaving out the very
paragraph that follows up where you stopped. It says this,

"I affirm the historic Christian faith, which includes the virgin
birth, and the Trinity and the inspiration of the Bible and much more.
I am a part of it, and I want to pass it on to the next generation. I
believe that God created everything and that Jesus is Lord and that
God has plans to restore everything."

By ignoring this single paragraph, people have started so many rumors
that are not true about Rob Bell, and his beliefs, I think that is
unfortunate.
Rob Bells context to the questions he poses in his section entitled
Brick is to get the reader to think objectively about their Christian
world view, and as he goes on to discuss in the remainder of the book
and in that section is that there are segments of the Christian faith
who believe they have it all together and that what they say about the
Bible is the final authority and there is no other. Yet, their opinion
and interpretation of the scripture is not the final authority, rather
God is, and there are things about God that we cannot "fully"
understand and we cannot contain. Thus the example that he gives that
we can contain things such as the book we are reading, but God is so
big he cannot be contained. The scripture tells us that God's ways are
higher than our ways. He also poses this point on the back cover of
the book as well as in a later chapter..."God has spoken, and the rest
is commentary, right? We may have beliefs and convictions, but that
does not mean they necessarily line up with the message in the Bible.

To say that we have it all together is arrogant and wrong. Rob is
challenging that there are a lot of churches & Christians as we have
known them for so long who believe they have it all together, yet they
seem to be failing in reaching a new generation that look at things in
a different manner than their parents and grandparents. I believe Rob
did a great job of pointing out the different cultures that the
different authors of the gospels were in and why the gospels tell the
same story but in a different style.

His example of the springs and everything falling apart is a fact that
I believe you would even agree with. If you were to take a central
part of the doctrine of the Christian faith and it were to not be
true, then the whole thing falls a part as being truth. The way I
understand Rob Bell's point is, those are the bricks of the faith,
they cannot be flexed and they cannot be moved, but it is those things
that are not essential to the foundational doctrine of the faith that
has flexibility. For instance, Andy Stanley did a message where he
said everything in the Bible is not relevant today, there are some
things that do not fly, such as to preach that if a child disobeys his
parents he must be put to death by stoning, such as was seen in the
Old Testament in the Bible...with things like that we have flexibility
and freedom in detail, but in the central foundations of the doctrines
that make up our faith, those are bricks, they hold it all together,
and there is no flexibility in them.

Nick

[Michael Krahn]

Hi Nick,

What things are the bricks, the "central foundations of the doctrines"? And are you then saying that the virgin birth is one of the springs and not one of the bricks?

--
Michael Krahn
www.michaelkrahn.com/blog

[Roland]

I think it comes down to what you define as a spring or a brick.
I started re-reading the book.
If you didn't know there was a virgin birth, or even that it was
supposed to happen, would you still follow Christ?
Of course, the whole thing is a "what if."
Look at Hebrews 6. What if a Christian could lose his salvation?
What would happen then?
I know that could spawn a whole new debate, but that is the point.
Who can plumb the depths of God? Not I. Even when we answer
questions, we end up with more.
Ah, the joy of life.

[Rick Stilwell]

I was on a different wavelength with the bricks vs. springs thing, I think. For both the spring and the brick, it's best that they stay in place somehow, that they don't break or crumble. It's just how much give or wiggleroom is there before they destroy the construction. Do you have to believe everything I believe in order for us to have a friendship, in order for God to "let you in"? I think the springs work better as a metaphor, letting us stretch and still keeping the functionality somehow.

 

How's that? - thanks - rick

 

--
love God - love people - get caffeinated
blog: http://gottabuzz.typepad.com/coffee/
cell: 803-240-5006
AIM: rickramble
Google Talk: rick1j13

[Roland]

Sounds good to me.

[magic...@gmail.com]

Rob's quote is that a spring stretches and bends and moves; You can
pull it and goes back into place. I'm not so sure he was saying "even
if Mary wasn't a Virgin, God still got the job done through Jesus" but
more, are you <i>able to question it</i>. Is your faith strong enough
to ask the questions and consider the ugly answers? I know a lot of
people who really hate reading Judges because it brings up an angry
God who orders death and destruction and blood. That doesn't fit into
their theology; they don't want to consider that <i>maybe</i> God
isn't always our Big Friend in the Sky.

Question EVERYTHING is more the point of the book to me. Somewhere in
Phillipians, we are told to work out our own salvation. Questions are
part of that.

[Roland]

That is a great insight, magicofeden.

Thanks.