I actually had entered this three days ago, but MySpace lost it when I attempted to post it, and I was so frustrated that I couldn't bear to do it over again.  I think I've recovered.  Mostly.

I find this section to be a fundamental aspect of Bell's theology.  That's both a positive and a negative thing.  The analogy of the springs works well, but it has limitations, and this is where I think Bell begins to exceed some of those limitations.  Not because he necessarily intends to, but because, in the interest of keeping the conversation fairly accessible, he chooses not to go into a lot of the finer points of distinction that are necessary when you pursue this analogy any further than he does here. 

First off.  There's the issue of Scriptural integrity and authority.  If you don't like the issue of six 24-hour days for creation, the question I want to ask is 'why'?  Is it because that doesn't jive well with the common (current) scientific methodology that indicates the earth *must* be millions of years old?  Is it because we don't believe that God could do it all in six days?  Is it just a little too specific?  Would we prefer it to be vaguer and less defined, so that we don't have to struggle with it?  Questions are always great - Christianity is a faith that welcomes exploration and questions.  However, as interesting as the questions themselves may be, what is of real value is what motivates the questions.  That's the rabbit hole that I always want to jump down first.

Because if you don't believe that God could create the universe in six 24-hour days, then you have put limitations on a God.  A God that the Judeo-Christian religious traditions hold to be all-powerful.  So you have to decide *why* you don't think he could do it.  Or perhaps it's because science has worked so diligently to insist that the *theory* of evolution is actually, in fact, The Truth, and our limited understandings of atomic structures and how they might be used for dating purposes are in fact adequate enough to trust.  That's fine.  Considering how strongly this set of beliefs is being pushed, it's not surprising that the reader may be uncomfortable with anything that contests them.  But we need to be honest about what our reservations are with the whole Genesis account of creation.

If you know what your hang-up is, then you'll need to be aware that the hang-up will probably show up elsewhere in the Biblical narrative, when things start to get a little less than rational, or beyond our scientific ability to recreate, prove, or defend.  And if you want to toss out one portion of the Bible because you don't like it, then what else are you going to throw out?  Christianity holds that the Scriptures have been given by God, and therefore work together.  Throwing out one piece weakens all of it.  The same doubts that disassemble one story or chapter or book will eventually want to disassemble all of it. 

Yes, humans want to think in terms of bricks.  We don't like ambiguity.  We don't like the tension of thinking we know something but not being able to prove it.  We're wired to want to know the answers to things.  That's why the trampoline analogy is great when applied to those who are new to the faith, but ultimately difficult to maintain for very long.  Pretty soon, people want to start nailing down some specifics.  Pretty soon, people want bricks.

That's not inherently sinful or evil or wrong, but it does pose problems in that the Bible seems to give us a lot more springs than it does bricks.  God doesn't seem too concerned about ensuring that we have all the answers to all our questions inside the covers of the Bible.  As creatures, we're never going to have all the answers regarding the mind of the Creator.  But that doesn't mean we don't try.

His example of the virgin birth is an interesting one.  It posits that science could one day disprove the veracity of a Biblical assertion about something that happened.  In which case, we'd be taking science's word over God's.  Problematic from a faith perspective, but not an ucommon dilemma, either. 

He throws out some interesting linguistic herrings to chase after.  Suddenly, the problem of a virgin giving birth when we *all* know that's not possible is made easier to deal with by changing the definitions of 'virgin'.  It's true, most words have more than one meaning, or different shades of meaning that range from subtle distinctions to bizarre opposites.  Greek and Hebrew are no different in this respect.  The problem I have with what Bell does is two-fold. 

Firstly, and most importantly, he isn't allowing Scripture to guide which definition he might choose to use.  Secondly, he's tossing out land-mines that he claims he doesn't really believe himself.  Playing devil's advocate is always dangerous, and almost always benefits the devil more than anyone else.  Don't build an argument for something you don't believe in.

But most importantly, he's ignoring Scripture as a source of guidance about what the definitions should be.  What are we to make of Matthew's distinction of not listing Joseph as the father of Jesus, but rather as the husband of Mary, the mother of Jesus (Matthew 1:16)?  What are we to make of Matthew's explicit explanation that Mary and Joseph had *not* been united sexually yet (Matthew 1:18)?  What of Matthew's description of Joseph in 1:19 as a 'righteous man'.  Would you describe as righteous a man who disgraces his betrothed and then seeks to ditch her - however discretely he hoped to go about it?  What about Matthew's reiteration in 1:25 that Joseph had no union with Mary until after Jesus was born?  What about Mary's response to the angel Gabriel in Luke 1:24?  "How will this be, since I am a virgin?"  Mary clearly seems to understand the cause and effect nature of sex and pregnancy.  She clearly seems to be asserting that she hasn't had sex , and therefore can't be pregnant.  Do we just ignore Gabriel's explanation in 1:25?

When  we have questions or doubts about one aspect or section of Scripture, when we suspect that we may have a spring instead of a brick, we need to search Scripture for clarification.  Just because a virgin birth is not unique to Christianity does not make it any less true.  The problem is not with the spring or brick, but with our desire to examine one spring or brick in isolation from all the others.

The unfortunate state of affairs is that there are a lot of people who interpret the Bible differently from one another.  So as long as there are people professing that the Bible is true, there will be people arguing and fighting over what that Truth is, or how it plays out in our lives today.  Shifting to a different analogy doesn't eliminate this.  Yes, faith is an experiential thing, a relationship thing, not a head-game.  But we also want to have as good an understanding as possible about who we profess to be in relationship with, and what sort of experiences are legitimate and what sorts may be erroneous.  Sooner or later, we grow tired of springs and start reaching for bricks.

We need to remember that the springs analogy is good, because what we are called to in faith is not a matter of intellectual assent or understanding, but rather a relationship.  And like any relationship, we can never fully understand the other person.  But we can learn things about them based on what they tell us, and how they act towards us.  To ignore what they say or what they do is not really to be in relationship.  It ends up with us creating what we would like for them to say and do, while ignoring what they really are saying or doing.  Our relationship is not with that person, but with our conceptualizations of that person.

God, just like a spouse or a friend, can be known somewhat, based on what he has told us about himself, and what he has done.  That's the purpose of Scripture, to provide us with that kind of material.    And at some point, I'm going to have to tell someone why I think they might be wrong in their understanding of God, if it clearly conflicts with what God has told us about himself or demonstrated about himself through his actions.  This can be done while still jumping - I don't need to push that other person off of the trampoline.  But it is inevitable at some point that differences of opinion about the strength of any given spring, or the proper number of springs, will be a source of contention - both between well-meaning believers as well as trouble-making miscreants.  There are both in the Church, you know.

Jesus does invite everyone to jump, and we need to remember this.  We need to remember that this is what we are called to do - to tell people about our experience of jumping and invite them to join us.  We're not to cudgel people about the head when they start jumping out of synch with us.  But we are going to want to help people learn when they might be jumping on fragile springs, or not enough springs.