You Can’t Not Have Doctrine
As I recently read Donald Miller’s Searching For God Knows What, I also re-read Rob Bell’s Velvet Elvis. Since many place the two together on some sort of “dialogue, discussion” or whatever you want to call it, I wanted to see their books laid out side by side to see what, if any similarities presented themselves.
One key similarity did indeed present itself, but it was in an e-mail exchange with a friend that I initially realized the extent of this similarity. Discussing Bell, Miller and other “emergents,” this friend remarked that what many of these people miss is that “You can’t not have doctrine.” That’s exactly right and that’s also what seems to tie many “emergents” together, they seem to think that they have outgrown doctrine, that talking about springs and relationships somehow means that we no longer need to worry about theological precision.
I know, I know, I can hear the screams of “Modernist” (can I at least be recognized as “Premodern”?) coming at me from every direction, but let’s think about this for a minute. First, let’s look at what Bell and Miller have to say for themselves on the subject. For example, Bell tries to equate doctrine to the springs of a trampoline:
“When we jump, we begin to see the need for springs. The springs help make sense of these deeper realities that drive how we live every day. The springs aren’t God. The springs aren’t Jesus. The springs are statements and beliefs about our faith that help give words to the depth that we are experiencing in our jumping. I would call these the doctrines of the Christian faith.”
Of course, Bell goes on to argue that one of the beauties of springs is how far they can stretch and still retain their shape and usefulness. While I appreciate Bell’s emphasis that “God is bigger than our words, our brains, our worldviews, and our imaginations,” what he neglects to mention is that it is possible to pull a spring far enough that it either breaks or loses its shape and usefulness altogether. Yes, all analogies break down, but it’s his analogy, not mine and I think that must be pointed out because I worry that Bell is pushing some “springs” to their limits.
Bell contrasts his “spring” approach to what he sarcastically refers to as “brickianity.” He says that for some people:
“faith isn’t a trampoline, it’s a wall of bricks. Each of the core doctrines is like an individual brick that stacks on top of the others. If you pull one out, the whole wall starts to crumble. It appears quite strong and rigid, but if you begin to rethink or discuss even one brick, the whole thing is in danger.”
I would be disappointed if bell then didn’t remark at how walls are used to keep people out. Don’t worry, that’s exactly where he goes with it. Miller, for his part, does not adopt an extended metaphor, but repeatedly throughout his book insists that we need to move away from “formulas.” Consider, for example, Miller arguing that:
“the Gospel of Jesus is all about our relationship with Jesus rather than about ideas. And perhaps our lists adn formulas and bullet points are nice in the sense that they help us memorize different truths, but harmful in the sense that they blind us to the necessary relationship that must begin between ourselves and God for us to become His followers. And wrse, perhaps our formulas and bullet points and steps steal the sincerity with which we might engage God.”
Now let me clarify: I readily admit that much of modern Christianity has adopted an overly academic approach to theology/doctrine and that there are many who study simply to gain knowledge and to be “right” in debates. I also understand and admit
that our words can not do God justice and any “systematic theology” will always be arranged logically (that’s the point).
But what is so interesting is that both of these books are full of doctrine. You can not not have doctrine, it’s simply impossible because once you do away with doctrine, you’re no longer a Christian. Tell me about this Jesus who saved you…..you cannot do so without doctrine. Bell and Miller simply give recycled voice to the old cliched “Don’t give me doctrine just give me Jesus” routine.
We need to be fair here and admit that Bell and Miller have some valid concerns. Doctrine is often far too rigid and exclusionary, it often formalizes and brings an academic air to truths that were meant to ignite our souls. But at some point we must exclude; some things simply are not Christian and for all the talk of springy relationships, I want to say that at some point, orthodoxy is important. Bell treads that line, recommending Marcus Borg, seemingly questioning the virgin birth and inspiration and Miller treads much of the same ground by fuzzifying faith to the point that it’s almost something we can’t even talk about.
Paul was certainly concerned with doctrine. Not only that, he was willing to tell people that they were wrong. Just because people have done this insensitively doesn’t mean that everyone is right. Push too hard and a spring is worthless and I don’t think that’s pressing the analogy too far, I think it’s a necessary warning to consider.
While it may be hip to claim that we’ve moved beyond the idea of doctrine, it’s simply not biblical. Jesus warns against accepting the “commandments of men” as doctrine (Matthew 15:9), Paul warns the Romans against accepting things “contrary to the doctrine” that they had been taught (Romans 16:17), he urges the Ephesians to “no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine” (Ephesians 4:14), and he admonishes Timothy not to let anyone teach “any different doctrine” (1 Timothy 1:3).
The problem seems to be equating doctrine with divisions, false piety, needless exclusions and the like. Might these things arise from doctrine? yes. Must they arise from doctrine? absolutely not. We must lovingly stand firm in “humble orthodoxy” and we must be willing to place walls. Some beliefs are simply not biblical and the most loving thing we can do is point that out. To do anything else is simply irresponsible. Love loves the truth and truth necessitates error.
I understand and appreciate the hearts behind these books, I really do. However, I worry that in the move to distance themselves from cold fundamentalists, Bell and Miller are allowing people to think that it doesn’t matter what we think. Is Christianity more than mere intellectual assent? Yes, but it is never less than that.
June 28th, 2006 at 3:02 pm
Doctrines (or Teachings)are how we speak intelligently about our God. At least, that is how I see it. They are human understandings (the very best we have hopefully) of a great and wonderful God.
However, I find myself struggling with the use of my language to people. A word like “doctrine” seems to draw a couple of different reactions from people. The vast majority get this glazed look on their face. They then mumble about me using “churchy language.” These are usually lost people that I’ve gotten to know over a period of time. Though, some church people also get that glazed look in their eyes when I say it as well.
The other reaction is almost a type of glee in their eye. That sort of look that kids get when they see two other little boys in the playground begin to fight. That is about the time they start yelling, “Fight! Fight!” The large group of kids gather around and watch the fur fly. In these groups, people sit forward in their seat (seemingly) looking for ways to shoot holes in the interpretation/application.
I’m starting to wonder if there isn’t a better word, than “doctrine?” I think that it is a language issue, and not a content issue. I agree, we need doctrine. We can’t live without it. It is a natural part of what God made us to be. But, maybe there is a better way to communicate it.
Tim
June 28th, 2006 at 3:10 pm
Brent,
Good post. I haven’t read Bell, but Miller’s books were good for me because of the valid concerns in the Church that you mentioned.
I think some of the “no doctrine” nonsense is the result of denominations and churches over-obsessing about doctrinal minutia. Think about the “flash” issues being debated in conservative evangelical denominations these days. Let’s face it, orthodoxy isn’t exactly in the balance.
It’s no wonder the younger evangelicals have lost interest in doctrine, seeing as how the older generation has done such a great job of confusing issues of orthodoxy with minutia.
June 28th, 2006 at 9:56 pm
I disagree with the last poster that younger evangelicals aren’t interested in doctrine. In fact, I find quite the opposite — they can’t seem to get enough of it when you present it to them. Just take for example the huge popularity of a man like John Piper with college students and young adults. I mean, JOHN PIPER — the guy is old enough to be some of these folks grandfather, yet he is the theologian of the Passion Movement and you can bet that half of everyone at those conferences will walk away saying his sermon was the highlight of the conference. And look at the success of Mark Driscoll and Tim Keller when they teach doctrine. So, in examining all of this evidence I find little to support the conclusion of the previous poster and the assumption of Bell and Miller.
You see, the problem with Bell and Miller is that they overemphasize something that they do well to point out — that right theology requires one to do right praxis. And there is too little of that occuring these days. We have “culture-warred” ourselves into passivity and when the Emergents come along they correctly address the issue, but to the extent that they overshoot their aim. It is much like a man riding in a car who sees the driver moving dangerously close to the yellow line. Instead of gently correcting the driver’s misdirection, the Emergents grab the wheel and yank, pulling it just as dangerously close to the cliff on the other side. The overcorrection leads to a whole set of problems they are neither prepared for or have the vision to anticipate.
Bell sounds really good when he talks about the springs, but as you point out, there is a point when the springs break. Unless the Emergents are willing to draw some lines, they will find themselves drifting farther and father toward that cliff which the mainstream denominations have already tumbled over.
June 29th, 2006 at 2:38 am
Interesting thoughts…good stuff.
Your post leads me to ask you what the correct doctrine is? If the function of doctrine is to be the vehicle in which we seek to understand God, then what importance does it possess beyond that function? Is it more importantly used as a way for us to communicate to each other what a proper or improper belief is? If that’s the case, then a certainty or “precission” is needed. Are you going to be cluing me in on what the precise or correct doctrine includes? You’ve got me all excited here. Finally, after thousands of years of Biblical interpretation, we will have some clarity….can’t wait!
I’ve read both Miller and Bell and never remembered either one saying that we are to “move beyond the idea of doctrine”. I think you are going a bit far to suggest that. I also think they are smart enough to realize that, as you’ve pointed out, not having a doctrine is simply impossible. If they are indeed saying “No Doctrine!” then guess what–that’s a doctrine! It’s not doctrine itself that they have an issue with. It’s the way in which doctrines are used to divide and alienate those who are seeking to follow Jesus but either can’t get past all the in-house bickering or can’t get enough of it. Obviously, they are striking a chord with many who have been previously burned by the hot coals of doctrinal arrogance. For that, they should be appreciated. For those who don’t appreciate that kind of thing, there will always be a vast list of authors like John Macarther or Mark Driscoll to keep their brick walls nice a sturdy.
Also, I think instead of “Premodern” you wanted to write “Pre-Postmodern”. But if you ARE premodern, I’d love to check out your time machine!
June 29th, 2006 at 9:58 am
Excellent thoughts. Hi, I’m new. I just found this blog earlier this week. My name is Andrew and I do youth and children’s ministry in Indianapolis.
On the topic of doctrine, I think that what Kevin Vanhoozer is getting at in his “Drama of Doctrine” addresses a lot of these concerns. Admittedly, I’m only on about page 60 of 460, but his points are relevant to the discussion.
I love Bell and Miller’s hearts, and I feel like Vanhoozer dramatically re-marries orthodoxy and orthopraxy in a way that Bell and Miller would appreciate (though of course I can’t speak for them). I won’t comment extensively since I’m still towards the beginning of the book.
Miller and Bell are very into narrative, and Vanhoozer’s conception of doctrine (and really, the Christian life) as divine drama takes the idea of narrative even one step further. It is not just story, but it is drama with sets, a director, character development, script, a stage, etc.
Doctrine CANNOT remain stagnant, but must be “acted out”. And the dramatic action of the doctrine is not just application of that doctrine, but the action is built into the doctrine itself, thus re-marrying thought and practice.
It seems like an academic fleshing out of a possible solution to Bell and Miller’s concerns with the “brick wall” of doctrine.
June 29th, 2006 at 6:44 pm
Good article and good balanced approach to both the books and doctrine. Yes, doctrine must be more than lists to discuss, debate, and debunk … they must be truths we believe and live. The more I read of the emergent church its followers seem to lack a real view of the scriptures and toss in a “whatever” view of theology. They might we wise to heed to the words of Paul to a younger pastor Timothy …
1 Timothy 4:16 Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers.
Paul’s word seem to carry a perservation of both minister and his sheep. Take heed lest we fall for building our houses on ground without a foundation.
Keep blogging this good stuff.
June 30th, 2006 at 4:35 am
Zach, you asked some interesting questions.
Your post leads me to ask you what the correct doctrine is?
Well, that depends on what specific view is in question. Are we talking about the Doctrine of the Atonement? Or of the Trinity? Or of salvation? Certainly there is some leeway in each of these for interpretation and nuance, but there is also heresy possible as well.
If the function of doctrine is to be the vehicle in which we seek to understand God, then what importance does it possess beyond that function?
One, it reveals the character of God and of Christ, which leads us to further Godliness. Paul explains this in Philippians 3:8-11 when he says, “that I might know Him.” John 17:3 says, “This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.”
Second, it reveals our character and whether we are babes in Christ or mature believers. In 1 Corinthians 3:2, Paul rebukes the church saying, “I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able.” The author of Hebrews uses the same metaphor when he says in 5:12, “For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food.”
Third, sound doctrine accomplishes the work of Christ. Paul tells Timothy in 1 Timothy 4:16, “Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers.”
Is it more importantly used as a way for us to communicate to each other what a proper or improper belief is?
No, the above are the most important purposes for holding to right doctrine and for “rightly dividing the Word of Truth.”
Are you going to be cluing me in on what the precise or correct doctrine includes?
I am sure you are being sarcastic here, but any doctrine must be defensible by Scripture and is usually historically defensible when you examine the beliefs of the Early Church through today.
Finally, after thousands of years of Biblical interpretation, we will have some clarity….can’t wait!
Again, more unnecessary sarcasm, but it you seem to separate what Brent is talking about here from what the Church has beleived for centuries. Often it is one in the same. A rejection of these things is problematic. Take for example the recent increasing popularity of universalism. This is something that while there have been instances of some in the Church believing this, it has been universally rejected throughout Church History. Thus, to separate what the Church has held to from what Christians are to do today is to miss the point.
It’s the way in which doctrines are used to divide and alienate those who are seeking to follow Jesus but either can’t get past all the in-house bickering or can’t get enough of it.
The problem with some of what you are saying here is that from the beginning of Christianity, doctrine has been divisive, and Paul and John both seem to indicate that it is the nature of doctrine to be such, because right doctrine reveals those in the faith and wrong doctrine reveals those who are not. Thus, when Jesus separates the wheat from the chaff (which is a picture of the Visible Church), then one of the ways those who are not of Christ will have revealed themselves on earth is through their rejection of sound doctrine. Let’s return to Paul.
1 Timothy 6:3-9
3 If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, 4 he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, 5 and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain. 6 Now there is great gain in godliness with contentment, 7 for we brought nothing into the world, and we cannot take anything out of the world. 8 But if we have food and clothing, with these we will be content. 9 But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction.
2 Timothy 4:2-4
preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, 4 and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.
Doctrine will always be divisive because there will always be those who refuse to believe in solid teaching. But what these men have proposed is unBiblical because it shuns their responsibility that Paul entrusted to Timothy and thus to all pastors and teachers, which is to watch their doctrine and to watch out for those who reject sound doctrine, not find ways to agree with them despite their false beliefs. Now, having said that, surely there is some unncessesary division in the body of Christ, but not all of it is and some of the most vocal are also those who have the most damnable doctrine, such as universalism, as spoken of above. Some preach a different Gospel, which will never produce true believers. We should be wary of these and when gently rebuke does not work, then we must separate ourselves from them. An example of this is what is happening in the ECUSA and the ABC, as well as the PCUSA. Some in those groups have tried unsuccessfully to call men to repentence, but now, after all has failed, there must be separation.
That is the result that Brent is warning Emergent to be wary of. If Emergent refuses to draw some doctrinal perameters, then one day there will be such diversity that there will be no true unity. And there will be many “converts” among them that are not truly of Christ. Then their lofty goals will fail and the whole conversation will end unsuccessfully. I hope you will see this Zach and heed the words of Paul and encourage others to do the same.
June 30th, 2006 at 11:37 am
to suggest we rely on the “what the Church has believed for centuries”, for me, can be dangerous and lacks a historical perspective. Things such as slavery and sexism have all been a part of the church tradition and to simply say to ourselves, “Well, that’s just the way it’s been” is an invalid approach. I’m not saying we ignore all of the Christian tradition when forming our sprituality. It is actually very crucial in many respects, but there are some pitfalls that come with a blind acceptance of “what has been”.
I think where we differ here is that you seem to be seeing Jesus through the “lens” of Paul and my approach is a bit more Anabaptist in the sense that I choose to read Paul, and all other scripture, through the “lens” of Jesus.
I appreciate the dialogue and you taking time to respond to some of my questions. I think we are simply in two different places in how we view this whole following Jesus thing and, for me, that’s ok. Although I may not be on the same path, I can certainly respect your journey. I apologize for the sarcasm. It wasn’t meant to be mean spirited, but I can see how it translates that way!
Peace.
June 30th, 2006 at 6:37 pm
I apologize upfront if what I write sounds harsh, but I am concerned that you have misread me. First, slavery and sexism are red herrings. There is nothing in Scripture that is legitimitely defensible regarding these two issues and neither constitute what we would call “Doctrine.” They might include practice, but that is not the same thing and thus a red herring to this discussion.
As for slavery, the NT assumes it is in culture, but at no time offers anything that could be intrepreted as an advocation of it. Some have twisted Scripture to make it so (mainly during a specific period of time), but the history of the Church does not uphold slavery as an institution compatible with the teachings of Jesus (who incidentally spoke of it as much as any other Biblical writer). And the slavery existent in the 1st c. was a far cry from our Americanized understanding of it (as people often sold themselves into slavery and worked their way out of it - nothing of the sort was paralleled in American history).
As far as sexism is concerned, you might consider the complimentarian position sexism, but that would be illegitimate since many woman thoroughly embrace this position and those who hold it clearly delineate between equality in personhood and yet a differing in God-given roles. As for any true sexism, as was exemplified in some packets of American life in the 20th century, some of that was due to culture and little was actually defended by Scripture.
Still, doctrine is a separate issue that these two issues, both of which are built upon doctrines, but are not doctrines in and of themselves. Doctrine refers to teaching concerning the character of God, the work of the Trinity, and the relationship between God and man, not to human institutions, which are a result of either a correct understanding of doctrine or a mishandled of it.
Also, you act as though I am suggesting that a “blind acceptance” is correct, but that is completely untrue. First, I believe in the Reformation doctrine of Sola Scriptura. But Calvin and Luther understood this to mean that Scripture was to stand alone in regard to Doctrine, but interpretation is informed by Church Teaching (consequentally, they stated this at a time in Church History where there was an overemphasis on human tradition and they advocated “humanism”, which then meant a return to the original languages and a reemphasis of the text of Scripture itself). I believe that nothing I wrote could be legitimately construed to come to the conclusion that I believe that we should accept Church Tradition over against Scripture. I believe your characterization is a complete misreading of what I said.
And I reject the implication that I read Jesus through Paul. I just don’t think they disagree, even as has been the understanding of the Church for 2000 years. This leads me to the conclusion that Paul’s words are AS authoritative as Jesus words, since it was Paul who was taught by the Holy Spirit in the wilderness and Peter said that Paul’s words were Scripture. Thus, I conclude that what Jesus said is informed by Paul’s teaching to the Church. Additionally, I think it is rather narrow and minimalistic for some to build a complete understand of God from only the words of Jesus, when He Himself said, “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. 14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you” (John 16:12-14). The history of interpretation of this passage is unanimous in the belief that Jesus was speaking of the apostolic writings, which make up the rest of the NT. Also, John writes in the conclusion of his Gospel, “Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.” Thus, Jesus, Himself, as well as His disciples, recognized the incomplete revelation of Jesus and the need to continue to reveal Himself through the Holy Spirit via the words of the apostles in inScripturization.
Additionally, we must understand that Jesus’ words were remembered by the apostles and recorded, thus any authority we assign to those words comes by faith that the Holy Spirit preserved those words and inspired the composition of the Gospels. Thus it is not any more of a stretch that He would have inspired those same apostles who helped to preserve Jesus’ words to interpret Him correctly and thus to offer to us a complete picture of God by which we can ascertain the Doctrines of the Faith that we ought to uphold.
I am glad that you are open to hearing these things though and I am glad to have the opportunity to discuss this. I think one major problem with the conservative Protestant Church is that it has not been open to questions and hasn’t been prepared to answer them, though some great theologians have. One of those is Carl F.H. Henry, whose Magnum opus was a six-volume set called, “God, Revelation, and Authority in which he sets forth rather sophisticated, scholarly, and Biblically sound arguments for inerrancy, the authority of Scripture, and the need for doctrinal fidelity. I challenge you to pick them up and at least skim some of his arguments regarding Scripture. Incidentally, Dr. Albert Mohler, the president of Southern Seminary in Louisville, was a moderate to liberal theologian until he met Dr. Henry and was challenged by his arguments. And, yet I have never heard of any moderate or liberal interaction with Dr. Henry’s work.
July 1st, 2006 at 12:18 am
Some good thoughts guys. Thank you.
D.R., I would like to thank you for addressing Zach’s “reading Jesus through Paul/Paul through Jesus” comment. Zach, I don’t know your heart but I can see how that comment appears to communicate the idea that somehow Jesus and Paul must be reconciled which I am not at all comfortable with. I think they are to be read together (after all, as D.R. pointed out, it’s the same Holy Spirit who spoke through both).
Also, to say that considering (historical/universal) church interpretation “lacks a historical perspective” just seems odd. We are saved as individuals, but we are saved into a community which includes saints of old. We must take former views into consideration in formulating our own. To offer slavery and sexism as arguments is simply moot. The church also struggled with the divinity of Christ, but you’re not going to say that that is misguided are you?
As D.R. pointed out, we do not accept “blindly” and when our predecessors erred, we admit it, we learn from it, we submit ourselves to the Scriptures afresh and we move on.
Thank you guys so much for your willingness to participate. This is exactly what makes blogging so exciting for me. I look forward to continued dialogue and continually learning from one another.
July 1st, 2006 at 2:56 am
I didn’t actually say that the Bible advocates slavery or sexism. I simply pointed out that they have been very prevalent within the Christian tradition and have not, until the last century, seen substantial progress.
Maybe my problem is that I find it difficult to accept that the Bible is inerrant and meant to be interpreted literally. While I appreciate you taking the time to write this, I simply don’t agree with a lot of your ideas. That may make me wrong, but that’s a risk I guess I’ll have to take. Maybe my faith is “narrow and minimalistic” as I choose to emphasize Jesus’ teachings, but that’s where I’m at.
Thanks for the encouragement and also for introducing me to the idea that my wife is a “compliment” to me as the leader of the household. She’ll be thrilled when I tell her that ;-)
July 1st, 2006 at 3:12 am
Although one thing we are in definite agreement on would be the music of The Rachels. That’s a great record.
July 1st, 2006 at 8:24 am
Zach, just to clarify, I didn’t think you were actually saying that the Bible advocated sexism or slavery (just that those things had been advocated by the church, right?).
Whether or not you may think so, the very fact that you seem willing to admit that Jesus was real means that you at least in part interpret the Bible “literally.” I appreciate your comments and the heart behind them. I look forward to hearing more from you.
If you like that particularly Rachel’s record (Egon Schiele), then I’d recommend the Johann Johannsson one as well. Good taste! Feel free to make music recommendations any time!
July 1st, 2006 at 10:48 am
You’re right in the sense that I do indeed interpret at least some of the Bible literally, but just not all of it. Obviously, there has to be some reliance on historical events and existences of certain figures in scripture, but my faith doesn’t necessarily hang on an error free Bible.
July 5th, 2006 at 6:31 am
Nice post. I am finishing Bell now. I have read Miller. Bell seems to forget in his analogy that even the springs have to be connected to something unchanging for the trampoline to work (duh). I know, I know, analogies break down, but this is rather substantive to his.
SOme of these writers make significant observations about culture and the church. But they swing the pendulum way too far at times in their correction, leaving unentended consequences as bad as their corrections. Bell inspires me greatly at points and drives me near temporary insanity at others. Makes for an interesting read I suppose.
July 6th, 2006 at 2:36 am
Zach, my problem when people say they don’t interpret the Bible is “literally” is that I don’t exactly understand what that means. Was is the opposite of interpreting the Bible literally and can you give me an example of how you do this. Certainly no Christian interprets all the Bible truly literally. Jesus is not really bread, or a door, or light, yet the historical facts regarding his life, crucifixion, and death were meant to be taken as true and we that happening in the early church.
As for your comments about sexism or racism being things the “Church” has struggled with, I don’t see then what you meant earlier when you said, “Things such as slavery and sexism have all been a part of the church tradition and to simply say to ourselves, ‘Well, that’s just the way it’s been’ is an invalid approach.” I think that some segments of the Church have struggled with these issues (especially in America, which actually makes up very little of the visible Church), but I am not sure how this actually invalidates the use of historical interpretations of Scripture to determine the correct doctrinal position on any particular issue that we should take as Christians. Maybe you could explain your reasoning here a bit more.
Finally, I wonder what you understand inerrancy to mean. Can you give a definition as you understand it. I often find that because of the word itself, many people misunderstand what inerrantists mean when they use it. Thanks again for clarifying earlier.