biblical
"I don't believe that. It's not biblical."
You've likely heard it said. Or perhaps a variation...
"It's true. I know it's true because it's biblical."
You've heard it said. Possibly you've even said it yourself. For many Christians it is common to acknowledge something (e.g. a belief, a social issue or behavior) as biblical or non-biblical. It is a functional point of reference. It effectively communicates that a person considers something to be either valid or invalid; condonable or condemnable.
The term is handy. It's a pocket-sized-explanation that can be pulled out and applied to a number of situations. It is abundantly useful. But maybe a bit too useful. And maybe, if we're not careful, the overuse might slink toward abuse.
I think it's time to consider taking a closer look at this particular piece of Christian parlance.
I don't want to suggest that you or anyone else cease using the term. But if you use it, consider also unpacking what you mean by it. Don't assume that what you mean by "biblical" is self-evident. Try not to use "biblical" as a win-all trump card.
For example, perhaps your belief about afterlife is shaped by certain texts in the Bible. Does that mean that your belief about afterlife is biblical? It might. But why not explain yourself a bit more. Which texts? And why do you read them the way you do? Do you know anyone who interprets them differently? How do you respond to them?
If you answered the final question with - "Their beliefs are not biblical" - then scroll up, start over, try again.
By all means, believe what you believe. But take responsibility for it. Don't prop your beliefs up next to the Bible without considering the implications. The Bible is loaded. If you push it, it's going to push back.
posted by aram mitchell | 8:41 PM
10 Comments:
oh man...can't agree with you more! we just read an article that challenged Rob Bell with the term "biblical Christianity"...seems clear-cut, or like it's supposed to be clear-cut, but it leaves me scratching my head, asking "what is 'biblical christianity' exactly?!" if the bible were solely composed of, say, leviticus maybe, where it's pretty cut and dry what the people of God are to do, then maybe that would make sense. but then there comes this guy, this Jesus Christ, who speaks in parables that are ambiguous and layered with multiple meanings, and suddenly terms like "biblical christianity" become very confusing.
thanks for sharing!
thanks for your comment christie! yeah... the whole afterlife discourse around bell's new book was the catalyst for this post. well said: ambiguous, layered, multivalent - and Jesus wasn't the first one to have a go at it in the canon either. can't get past page one without encountering a narrative that comes at you from a couple different angles. thank god! keeps us on our toes... well, it should anyway ;o) i like it like that.
Excellent post. Pretty much captures some thoughts that have been stirring in my heart and mind recently. I am thinking the term does not have much value.
David Platt in his book "Radical" makes it clear. The message of Christianity is not God love me period. Biblical Christianity is God loves me so that I can make Him,His ways,His salvation,His Glory, and His greatness known to all nations. Biblical Christianity has never been about man, or what we think is important. It has been and will always about God, what He has done for us and that He is the one in charge not us
Biblical Christianity is that when it comes to matters of faith and God, the final authority lies in the Bible, the inspired word of God, without error, and capable of speaking for it's self. It is also about Jesus Christ( where we get the word Christian). the only Son of God and what he did for man on calvary to atone for our sins. It's as simple as that.
Judging by the negative reaction I get when I talk to non-believers and believers who do not subscribe to Biblical Christianity( read Christian left), and how offended they feel, I have a good idea that most people know what Biblical Christianity is
Hey all you Anonymouses - I'm not sure just how to respond to your comments, but thanks for posting them. Feel free to ID yourself if you want to keep the conversation going.
I still think it's an important point to note that when the term "biblical" is used it is often used in such a way that implies that the Bible is univocal - that it has a crisp, clear, single message that resonates throughout every text included in the canon.
But it's not difficult to notice that that's not the case - e.g. God doesn't change God's mind (Numbers 23:19-20; James 1:17) yet God does change God's mind (Genesis 6:6; I Samuel 15:35) - or e.g. in the Gospel of Mark Jesus is almost snooty, while in the Gospel of John Jesus is rather polished and refined. So who is God? What is Jesus like?
Some people dismiss the Bible as bogus because it is not pristine and univocal. I don't (I think it's possible to adjust my posture to the Bible rather than trying to stiff the Bible into what I think it needs to be). But what I DO push back at is the suggestion that Anonymous #2 made - that the Bible is capable of speaking for itself.
The Bible is useful and meaningful today, it is not inaccessible or inapplicable - but to say that the Bible speaks for itself is dangerous. If the Bible speaks for itself then you are in no way responsible for the implications of what the Bible tells you to do or believe. You do not have to think about or be fully present to the message. And in my opinion - that conclusion is simply not biblical (*tongue.in.cheek*).
To claim that the Bible speaks for itself is to marginalize the host of groups and individuals who cherish the Bible (as meaningful, inspired, inspiring, and sacred) yet who arrive at different conclusions about the message(s) of the Bible.
Dear Biblical Christian: you are free to perform acts and make decisions based on what you read in the Bible, but own up to it - you are interpreting a multivalent text, you are responsible for the decisions you make. You are responsible for the marginalization that results from your reading of the text. Believe what you believe, but stop blaming God and stop blaming the Bible.
biblical christianity seems like some very loaded language to begin with since there are many flavors of christianity derived from the texts, not to mention the many different world views that are acknowledged within the texts--trouble brews when we take a document written by people and boil it down to a singular authoritative way of thinking--that sounds more like following Hitler than faith in a mysterious God--maybe we shouldn't agree with anything that makes things "clear" or "simple"--and instead engage in the complicated mystery
Biblical Christianity is the foundational rock of all Christianity. It is not what man created (ie Roman Catholic, Methodist, Lutherian, etc) to please God, but by God to forgive man.
Biblical according to the dictionary means according too, or in the Bible. So Biblical Christianity is Christianity according to the Bible period. Not of man and his traditions and rituals, as practiced in churhes (ie Roman catholics, Lutherans, methodist, etc).
To divert from "biblical Christianity" to a "biblical concept of God":
An interesting question that I think ought to be addressed by thoughtful Christians is the matter of How much the Bible shapes our understanding of God? vs. How much does tradition shape our understanding of God?
For example - Is God immutable, as Orthodox tradition suggests? or Is God passionate (subject to feeling and change) as the Bible often suggests (note: the Bible also suggests the opposite)? Perhaps our traditions and conditions have informed and effected our understanding of the Bible. And perhaps the Bible has helped to shape our traditions. It seems unlikely that the two can be entirely and absolutely separated.
(The same question can be applied to the Anonymous comment above that suggests that "biblical Christianity" is based only on what is found in the Bible and not at all on human constructs or traditions. I think that is a good definition of the phrase "biblical Christianity". However, I don't think that such a thing exists, i.e. there is no such expression of Christianity. In other words: all expressions of Christianity are effected in one way or another by human constructs/traditions, and human conditions effect the the way we understand the Bible. This isn't a bad thing. But it's dangerous if we are not mindful of it.)
Post a Comment
<< Home