Away From Home

I recently read a review of the book Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith by Rob Bell. The review was very thorough, and I won’t go into all of the things the reviewer had to say about the book. But he several times made reference to Rob Bell’s analogy for doctrine in traditional Christianity versus a more contemporary understanding of Christianity that Bell promotes. Bell thinks of doctrine in traditional Christianity as bricks in a wall, where, as he says, you remove one and the whole wall crumbles. In his own understanding of the doctrines of Christianity, he sees doctrines as springs in a trampoline, things that can be removed, stretched, bent, or thrown out all together and the trampoline still works. You can still keep jumping.

I would like to note that I see a big flaw with the trampoline picture: A trampoline has a balanced number of springs, and if you remove one, the balance in that area of the trampoline is thrown off. Eventually it will cause undue stress to the fabric and eventually it will tear. If the tear is not repaired, eventually the trampoline will be ruined completely. So, to compare the doctrines of Christianity to springs in a trampoline is actually a poor argument for what Bell is trying to do, that is, to say that Christians should feel comfortable with allowing significant doctrines (such as the doctrine of the Trinity, the divine nature of Christ, or the virgin birth, which are ones he mentions) to be morphed or done away with as nonessential to our faith.

But in last couple of days I’ve heard a couple analogies that I think are much more apt. The first is to picture the doctrines of the Christian faith as a daisy. In the golden center is the Gospel, to which all other doctrines are attached. All the other doctrines are petals. If you remove one, you weaken the whole plant, because not only does it lose some stability (thus making it easier to lose other petals), but it also cannot received as much sunlight and water, things essential to its existence. You detract from its beauty, and finally, if you remove enough petals, the flower cannot survive. It will wither and die. The same with doctrine, when we begin to remove one, it becomes easier to remove others, and it is more difficult to defend and uphold the others. It loses the beauty of the unity of Scripture that gives us assurance and confidence that we’re forgiven, that God works for our goods, that our prayers are heard, that God provides angels to guard us, and so many other wonderful assurances. Remove enough petals, and we lose even the Gospel as its significance withers and dies in our hearts. 

Consider another picture: Spokes on a bike wheel. The Gospel is the hub in the center, and the other doctrines are the spokes. They are not something that can be easily manipulated, and who would want to? Bend or remove a spoke in a bike wheel and you weaken the wheel. Sure, you can still ride around for a while, but it’s not very good for the bike, and if you remove enough spokes, well, the bike will quickly become unrideable (excuse the made up word, please). So with doctrine. Bend, reshape, or remove the doctrine, you weaken the whole. People aren’t going to feel confident about your presentation of what God’s Word says if you are willing to bend or acquiesce on certain points that are for some reason unpalatable. And as before, you remove enough, you lose even the Gospel.

This is why our principles of fellowship are so important, that is, that we express unity in doctrine only with people with whom we truly are unified. Praying together, worshiping together, communing together, all of those things are expressions of unity, so unless I can be confident that a person is truly in agreement with me, I would be doing a great disservice to that person and not honoring God by giving them the impression that their torn off petals and missing spokes were just okay with me.

Consider that picture for a moment. If I buy a bouquet of daisies for my wife, I will not tolerate the florist putting several daisies into the bouquet with broken or missing petals. They don’t look good. I expect that all the flowers will be beautiful, because my wife is worth that. I don’t think anyone would tolerate it. So, when our church presents its bouquet of devotion to God’s Word to our Lord, would we tolerate broken and torn off petals in the bouquet? Our fellowship principle a testimony that we insist on giving God a bouquet of beautiful devotion to his Word. If we see someone approach with a damaged daisy, we ask them to first take some time to appreciate the beauty of a perfect daisy, and then give them a new daisy before inviting them to add it to our bouquet.

I could make a similar analogy with the bike. If I’m going to ride my bike and another person comes along and wants to ride with me, and I notice that his bike is missing spokes, I wouldn’t invite him to ride with me, not because I’m concerned so much with myself as I am concerned with him. I don’t want him to ride his damaged bike, because it may break while we are riding together and he might be hurt. Or he may just damage his bike beyond repair and our ability to ride together would be lost. Instead, before we ride I’m going to help him repair his bike if possible, or help him get a new one entirely. But either way, I’m going to be sure that before we ride together, he has a bike with strong wheels and complete spokes. I won’t belabor the point by drawing the connection between this and doctrine save to say this: One of the main reasons we have the principles we do is due to our love for others.

I should make one final note: There is a distinction here between those who are weak in their faith or understanding of God’s Word, but are members of my church and believe that it teaches the truth. There may be a need for correction, but that is different from what we might call a “persistent errorist”, that is, someone who holds a false doctrine to be true despite all correction, and attempts to promote that doctrine. And that “persistent errorist” may be a member of my church, or may be a member of a different church that holds a different confession or a different view of what God’s Word says. I just want that to be clear so that it doesn’t sound as though a person must perfectly understand all of God’s Word in all points at all times to be a part of our fellowship. If that were the case, no one would be in the fellowship. The difference is in having a misunderstanding but open to correction and tight adherence to false doctrine.