Rooted Openness – The Big Story and the Irreducible Core (Alan Molineaux)

Having just lived through the relatively tumultuous storm of Hellgate during which the Mars Hill Bible Church pastor Rob Bell asked some very awkward questions.  In what seemed to resemble a Monty Python scene, the calvanistic big guns exclaimed ‘He’s not an evangelical, he’s a very naughty boy!’

What saddens me most about the whole issue is that it became almost impossible to have a sensible conversation about the subject without the feeling that you too were being both labelled and dismissed in the process. Whether you use Evangelical, Calvinist, Arminian, Liberal, Emergent, or other it must be seen that belief exists as more of a spectrum than distinct groupings. People like Brian Mclaren, Doug Pagett, and Rob Bell have attempted to provide a vocabulary for those who are exploring what is perceived as a more progressive theology.

There have been others, in particular Jim Belcher in his book Deep Church, who have tried to navigate a middle ground in the hope of presenting a third way. I enjoyed Jim’s book but again felt that another title didn’t fully reflect the spectrum of belief described. I understand that we do need titles and descriptions in order to locate various beliefs in a framework that allows us to address the issues concerned in a meaningful and productive way. I want to offer some thoughts on my own way of navigation.

I have chosen the two motifs of Rootedness and Openness to best describe my approach. I have long felt that the best way of finding location on the theological and ecclesiological landscape is to occupy a place of tension between two ideas. In doing so one is free from the fear of both stagnation and excess.

My suggestion of rooted-openness attempts to offer both the acknowledgement of the need for defined reference points and the understanding that there will always be a spectrum of belief.


For my own context I have attempted to describe an irreducible core of belief that is rooted in both the biblical narratives and the testimony of the historic church. For me the central component of this irreducible core is the person, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I would locate this centrality in a Trinitarian understanding of the story. There are other components to this be I find my starting point here.

It seems to me that churches that develop a core that is too wide at this point risk including ideas that limit the possibility of discussion both within the group and with other churches; for example ideas concerning eschatology and ecclesiology are often held with an unhealthy reverence. Either way I would encourage you to discover an irreducible core within which you can put down roots.


It seems all too easy for us to close our minds too quickly to conflicting voices. I feel this has happened recently in response to Rob Bell. I am not sure that on every point I fully agree with Rob but I do eagerly welcome his input. He has provided a vocabulary for many within the church who have struggled with certain presumptions made of scripture. It is my assessment that all Rob really said was that it is possible to both uphold the bible and see things in a different way to that traditionally delivered within evangelicalism.

He gives room for ideas often ignored by much of the evangelical church. He has often been accused of being vague on some issues but that is the point; some of the ideas we have counted as definitive are up for discussion. Why are we so frightened of such dialogue?

I would like to suggest that we develop an openness to the possibility of a bigger story.

What perhaps saddens me most is that many of those who offer a criticism to the likes of McLaren, Bell, and Pagett fail to offer a view on such ideas, preferring to speak against the very idea of raising questions about perceived evangelical belief. Further than this such critics often fail to address the questions raised prefering to simple accuse others of questioning God when they are in fact questioning a theology. Whatever theological position we hold we must always agree that our beliefs will never fully explain God; otherwise our beliefs themselves would become an idol.

Openness leaves room for an understanding of God in ways outside of both our experience and theological construct. Holding this in tension with a Rootedness in an irreducible core centred on the person of Jesus Christ brings a check to how far my openness might take me.

You may well see the above as an attempt to decry existing theological and ecclesiological labels only to replace them with alternatives. This is a constant danger in such an exercise such as this. I believe however that introducing the idea of a spectrum of belief held in tension between two seemingly opposite locations allows for a broader discussion than the mere acceptance of a single label. Hopefully this understanding of spectrum might act as an antedote to much of the tribal theological turf wars we continue to see.In truth I believe that behind all labels is the kind of spectrum of which I write.

If we enquire of the term evangelical for example we will soon discover that it has the possibility of revealing a variety of spectrums behind this seemingly definitive label. One can be an Evangelical Charismatic or an Evangelical calvinist. In actuality these may or may not be mutually exclusive, however the fact of their existence reveals the probability of a spectrum of belief.

Where to now?

I believe this to be a highly personal journey that is best done in community, through the influence biblical narrative, the teachings of the church, the witness of the Holy Spirit. Some of my findings may well cause others to cry ‘He’s not an evangelical, he’s a very naughty boy!’ but that is a risk I am willing to take. I will endeavour to discover what it means to be rooted in the historic Christian faith whilst being open to the enormity of God’s salvation story for all of his creation. I hope to find others on a similar path with whom I can travel.


Thanks to my good web friend, Al Molineaux for this challenging guest piece.  Connect with him on Twitter.

"All I have to say is this: You are absolutely right, & your article makes ..."

Sometimes Reading the Bible Literally is ..."
"Very interesting and makes total sense, thanks for writing it!"

Name Change Myth: Saul Never Became ..."
"Thanks for the additional info about the actual spelling and the giving of his Roman ..."

Name Change Myth: Saul Never Became ..."
"Its 2018 and I'm glad this article is still posted. It is spot on. Reading ..."

Why "No One Knows the Day ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Cassie Bradley

    Would like to suggest this article concerning Rob Bell and his…interpretation of the gospel. This is a very clear and concise article that outlines what Rob Bell believes and addresses the doctrinal issues that go over this. It is a fair an honest assessment for anyone interested –

    • Pastormartin

      Cassie – that article does not outline what Rob Bell believes. It it written by someone who obviously has not listened to a lot of Rob Bell, doesn’t understand his communication style, and is a fundamentalist in their interpretation of scripture. The only way to find out what Rob Bell believes is to listen to Rob Bell himself. One of the reasons I stopped reading Charisma was because of their “preaching to the choir” style of sloppy journalism.

  • This is a good way of looking at it. It reminds me of what our youth pastor taught us from John 15. The closer the branch is to the vine (the person of Christ), the thicker and less flexible it is. The further you go toward the tip (nonessentials), the thinner and more flexible.

  • Anonymous

    Speaking from the gut: I like what you do here!

  • Pastormartin

    The early church fathers believed in “revealed theology” – what you are calling “rootedness”, and “speculative theology” – what you are calling “openness”. That meant they were able to be accepted as orthodox because of their alliegence to the “revealed” truths of the faith, but they were still allowed to “speculate” on less clear issues without being labeled a heretic. Until Augustine and Constantine. That is what is missing in today’s church and it is the problem with fundamentalism – you are not allowed to speculate on anything or you will be labeled a liberal and a heretic.