The Baby & the Bathwater

  "Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater" is a common saying that expresses one's concern that those who are questioning or re-adjusting their beliefs may go too far and jettison essential core truths and put their salvation in jeopardy.  It can be rather scary, both to the questioner and especially to his on-looking fellow believers.
  So how does one make sure that, if he does leave the spiritual house, at least he doesn't leave the neighborhood?  If he departs from some of the theological distinctives of his denomination, what constitutes crossing the line into heresy?  Who decides things like this?  Should we rely on our spiritual leaders, or can we decide for ourselves based on our own reading and understanding of the Bible?
  After reading Rob Bell's latest book, Love Wins, I found myself agreeing with him on certain points and not on others.  Some of his thoughts are outside the conventions of mainstream evangelical Christianity in America.  So who decides if he's a heretic?  I went back and reviewed the Apostles' Creed to see about the essentials.  Hmm, no problem there; looks like Bell is still in the theological neighborhood if the Apostles' Creed describes the neighborhood.  

  1. "Sticking to the Bible" isn't always a reliable method of establishing one's beliefs.  There are a thousand denominations out there, and they are all based on solid interpretation of the Word-- albeit, many different interpretations.  

  2. Trusting the Holy Spirit won't work; there are innumerable instances of people hearing exactly opposite revelations from the Holy Spirit, resulting in many a divergent pathway.

  3. How about safety in numbers?  I mean, if we stay within the mainstream of belief are we safe?  Martin Luther didn't think so.  There are beliefs that evolve and devolve, some espoused by individual scholars, some by denominational conferences, and others that just sort of happen to become popular without a champion and who knows how, rather like urban legends that become widely accepted but are not backed by a stitch of truth.  And some are really a stretch.

  As an example, a couple of years ago a friend of mine expressed grave concern that a fellow who was questioning authority within his church was in danger of judgement because he had removed himself from his "spiritual covering".  Even though the doctrine of "covering" was virtually unknown fifty years ago and has only come into widespread acceptance recently, partly through the efforts of ultra-conservative speaker Bill Gothard in the 1980's (the same guy who announced that rock music is of the devil).
  Even more widely accepted is the idea that when human beings die and go to heaven they turn into angels with wings who float on clouds and play harps.  Really.

  Anyway, though I think doctrines are generally arrived at (1.) in community by groups of like-minded people who base their conclusions on their dead-level-best understanding of (2.) the scriptures while seeking revelation from God through (3.) the Holy Spirit, it seems that individual believers often make their judgements on who's a heretic by one simple method:
  Anybody who doesn't believe what I believe is a heretic.