Every once in awhile I realize that I use a word I don’t know the meaning of – like grace or gospel. It usually when one of my kids asks me what it means and I find myself tongue-tied. When I ask around, I discover that no-one else knows what it means either. Yet we toss these words around like we all get it.
The word “biblical” is one of these. I read books and hear preachers and teachers throw around that word and the twin underlying assumptions that we are all supposed to be biblical and that we all know what that looks like.
But we don’t.
As I have grappled with questions about God and the Bible, I have learned what a confusing word “biblical” is. It could mean many different things:
- of or pertaining to the Bible
- found in the Bible
- specifically taught by the Bible
- specifically taught by a certain denomination or a pastor from the Bible (which is always selective – “we do these things, we don’t do those things”)
If you are speaking to people inside your specific religious group, they might understand what you mean when you say “biblical.” But only if you’ve taught them your definition. Outside those narrow confines, people could understand it to mean anything, and your ability to communicate clearly with the word dissolves.
Without carefully defining what we mean when we use the word “biblical,” we can come across as supporting all manner of horrific things.
Here’s what I mean. If someone hears “biblical” and thinks “in the Bible,” they could understand you to mean you justify polygamous marriage, genocide, or slavery of some sort (maybe not the kind of slavery we fought a war over, it could be the slavery of patriarchy — of wives and children). All of those are offensive and repulsive to me, but they are found in the Bible, and not just practiced by God’s enemies. All of these have been practiced at various times throughout history by Christians because they justified them in the Bible.
I use that example to point out the fallacy that Christians often fall into: that “biblical” is simple concept to understand. This is a concept called “perspicuity of Scripture.” Oh the irony to use a word no-one knows for the idea that the Bible is easy to understand (to which I respond, “You have not read Ezekiel, Ecclesiastes, Job, and Revelation!”) An ancient book written in a foreign language to an ancient culture as different from ours as night is from day cannot be simple to understand. If you are reading and applying it at face value, and if you take that to its ultimate end, you could justify being a polygamous slave-owner who commits genocide against those who are different.
To be fair, my conservative friends and family do not believe in polygamy, genocide, or slave-ownership. So what DO they mean, and how did they arrive at it? Who says what is and is not biblical? How do they decide?
When I dug into those questions, I discovered that the process of defining “biblical” turns out to be quite complicated and subject to ongoing debate.
I’m also not so sure this is a worthy endeavor. I think we should stop and ask the question “Is being biblical supposed to be our goal?” What if trying to be biblical is like trying to be Polish – you either are or you aren’t? What if the changes in our lives are done to us and in us by God after we commit to following and serving Him?
One thing Christians agree on is that Jesus and his disciples taught that we are to imitate Jesus. We tend to disagree on what all that entails, but we agree that Jesus lived the perfect life and is therefore our perfect role-model. Even better, people outside individual sects of Christianity understand who Jesus was and what it means to imitate him.
Let’s quit talking about being biblical and instead focus on loving and serving and imitating Jesus.
***
Sponsor a child in Bolivia with World Vision
Click here to receive Joy in This Journey posts in your email.
Available for RSS readers and email
Jesus. Yes. The Word made flesh, the fullness of the Godhead bodily. Absolutely this is where we should fasten our eyes. Jesus said some complicated and challenging things, so it’s not that it’s SIMPLE to love and live the way Jesus did, but it certainly brings things into focus.
Megan at SortaCrunchy recently posted..Your Green Resource – Week Six
I’m a conservative guy, but I’ve figured out recently that saying I’m biblical and that others aren’t insults them. I may think they have it wrong, but I don’t know many people who aren’t deriving their theology from the Bible. Of course I mean Christians. I have one view that disagrees with my former pastor’s view. Which one of us is not being biblical? So, why do spend so much energy fighting about all of this stuff?
Love this. Being an anthropology major in undergrad ended up causing a mini faith crisis for a few years, even though I went to a Christian college. Learning about the cultural constructs of the Maasai of Kenya or the Urapmin of New Zealand made me question what happens when we turn around and perform anthropology on our own white middle-class U.S. culture. I couldn’t answer the “why” behind what the U.S. said was biblical, and neither could the church itself.
I like your Christo-centric solution and hope you’ll develop this more. I feel like there’s a vacuum after we deconstruct what’s biblical, you know?
Natalie Burris recently posted..Observations from detention court
I’m a New Zealander, and I’ve never heard of the Urapmin. Who are/were they?
I misspoke – they are actually from Papua New Guinea. Sorry about that.
If you are interested, the book about them is called Becoming Sinners by Joel Robbins. Conservative Baptist missionaries introduce the concept of sin and “end-times” theology, which changes the Urapmin culture. The book will make you think about sin and grace in your own culture – very thought-provoking.
Natalie Burris recently posted..Observations from detention court
I love the points you make here. The bottom line: imitating Jesus. It can’t get more perfect than that.
C.S. Lewis wrote, “‘What are we to make of Christ?’ There is no question of what we can make of Him, it is entirely a question of what He intends to make of us.”
I think this principle can be applied to the Bible as well, since Hebrews 4:12 tells us: “For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.” It’s not what we can make of the Bible (trying to attain “biblicalness”), but what the Holy Spirit does in us through our study of God’s word (1 Cor. 2:12-14).
Great post, Joy. Words and word-choice are important, aren’t they? The Bible certainly says so, if James 3:8 is any indication any way!
Tim
P.S. I may have just made up the word “biblicalness”. That’s ok. I take comfort in the fact that all words are made up words.
I LOVE making up words. “Biblicalness” is officially in my vernacular now.
it’s important to note that during the formation of the Protestant movement, there were a number of arguments, especially among the Calvinist refinement of Luther’s original point, that required Arminius to step up and clarify that the bible must be our authority, rather than logic.
Beza, one of Calvin’s students, had specifically begun to support supralapsarianism, or double predestination, which says that God has predestined everybody to either be saved or damned, before the creation of the world.
The obvious logical end of this is, of course, that God is the author of sin.
Jacob Arminius pointed out that this could not possibly be the case, and that we cannot take on beliefs that contradict the bible.
Much of the modern Protestant Church owes a great deal to the sacrifices of Arminius and his followers, but in many cases, what is biblical has become problematic…there are far too many Christians who, also in the method of Calvinism, want to be able to know what the bible says before they actually go to the bible, and then find confirmation for those beliefs in the bible, outside of context.
As a result, what is “biblical” is often very much in the eye of the beholder.
Todd, I think it’s ok to use reason (or logic) when studying the Bible. After all, that’s what God suggests in Isaiah 1:18 – “Come now, let us reason together.”
Here’s an example where logic works. The Bible says Jesus Christ is the Son of God. It does not also say the Jesus is not the daughter of God. I’d say the conclusion that Jesus is God’s Son and not also God’s daughter is a logical conclusion to draw, but it is not explicitly supported in the Bible. Still the logic works.
Here’s another example. The Bible says God appointed some for eternal life (e.g., John 17:2, Acts 13:38). It does not go on to say that God appointed some to eternal punishment, but by the positive act of choosing to appoint some he has also chosen not to appoint others. Arminius may make the leap of logic that this means God is the author of salvation, but that’s a stretch I’m not willing to join in.
Arminians are my sisters and brothers in the faith, just as I am their brother. And we can all agree that we are in this faith together because God appointed us to be here. We differ on how the non-appointing happens for non-believers, but to say that either Calvinist or Arminian theologians are being unbiblical or are somehow led astray because they are looking to the Bible for guidance when they should have just looked at Jesus is an even greater stretch than I suggested Arminius made.
One thing I know about the Bible is that “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. ” (2 Timothy 3:16-17.) I think that means I should read it and understand it (or reason it out) by the power of the Holy Spirit as I look to Jesus and hope to glorify our Heavenly Father.
Blessings,
Tim
I would like to note here that you somehow managed to completely miss my point, which is that we have struggled with what it is to be biblical and what the source of our faith and teaching is for as long as there has been a Protestant Church. Once the Church itself was no longer the authority (via the Catholic Church) this has always been a problem.
To say that I am attempting to say that we shouldn’t use logic is to miss the point, and to misread history.
Todd Erickson recently posted..Incarnation
My apologies, Todd. I did not mean to misrepresent your well-written comment. I especially like your thoughts toward the end: “… there are far too many Christians who, also in the method of Calvinism, want to be able to know what the bible says before they actually go to the bible, and then find confirmation for those beliefs in the bible, outside of context.”
Except for the part that accuses us Calvinists of engaging in such horrible practices, that statement is golden!
Tim
Let me qualify.
Calvin’s original handbooks literally were for the stated purpose of telling people what they should be looking for when studying the bible. His students, such as Beza, reinforced this. Essentially, Eisegetical study.
I know that growing up in the Baptist Church (which is at least strongly reformed, though they would never admit Calvinist leanings) that this was also the case…people would prooftext the verses that backed up what they wanted the bible to say.
However, I generally find that anybody who seriously reads the bible comes to the point where they can no longer do this, and must daily wrestle with what the bible (and the Spirit) tell us instead. Opening into the wider array of historical context… well.
Thus as Christians, we must always have the humility to ask whether that which we have claimed as biblical orginates in that part of our heart unclaimed by holiness, rather than native to the Word himself?
Todd Erickson recently posted..Incarnation
Precisely! I’m not up on 16th c. Reformed Bible study practices so can’t comment on your insights there, but I love your last two paragraphs. Thanks for putting it so well, Todd.
Tim
Great post, Joy! I don’t know if you’ve read Richard Beck at his “Experimental Theology” blog, but he generated a wonderful discussion last week when he shared some similar thoughts.
As someone who grew up in Sunday School singing “the b-i-b-l-e, yes that’s the book for me, I stand upon the word of God” I was taught early and often that every choice we make in life should be “biblical.” What we meant by biblical, of course, was that everything we did should follow our own, narrow list of do’s and don’ts. For the past couple of years I’ve been part of an Anabaptist community. Their focus on seeing Jesus as the Word of God and the lens through which we gain clarity in our understanding of who God is has been refreshing to me and I think aligns well with your closing comment that we’re called to follow and imitate Christ, reflecting God to the world.
I need to check his blog out — I have seen his name pop up a few times lately and have been meaning to go. Is he anabaptist? I really want to learn more about their take on faith.
Joy recently posted..What Do You Mean, “Be Biblical”?
Richard Beck is part of a Church of Christ community in Abilene, where he’s a professor at Abilene Christian University. He consistently stretches my thinking with his perspectives.
If you’re interested in learning more about the Anabaptist take on things, I can’t think of anyone better than Bruxy Cavey. He’s the teaching pastor at The Meeting House in Toronto. Much of his teaching is available in podcast form on iTunes or streamed directly from The Meeting House web site. Bruxy is another one who consistently stretches my thinking.
Chrystal recently posted..Jesus Christ Superstar
Brilliant post!
Three words – “The Bible Made Impossible”
Mason recently posted..We’ve Moved!
Ok, that’s definitely four
Mason recently posted..Adventures of a Young Biblicist: Part One
Hahahahahah! You made me laugh, Mason.
Joy recently posted..What Do You Mean, “Be Biblical”?
I think most try to overcomplicated things when they use biblical. I’m not saying they are wrong per say but I think it comes down to loving God and loving people.
Amy Nabors recently posted..Photo Friday: Memories
I’ve never heard or used the expression “be biblical.” It seems much clearer to me to say “be Christ-like.”
Lady Jennie recently posted..Things We’ve Been Doing
Good work, Joy. Like I said a couple of days ago – keep on asking those questions! This one hits a couple of important nerves and hopefully helps remind us to be careful of our word choice – and our use of scripture. It has been so fun to watch you wonder this last year or so – and to watch you grow.
Diana Trautwein recently posted..Family Portraits: #2 – Auntie Mae
Great post Joy. It really made me think. I am in the process of re-reading the entire Bible and I am continually amazed at what I find in it. Some scary and disturbing stuff, to be sure, but also a lot of great stuff too. It is challenging to read the Bible with a heart open to the Holy Spirit’s interpretation and not one born of your own prejudices or desires. But this is my aim in this re-reading. I do know this: it is more and more obvious to me that Jesus is present in the Bible from Genesis through Revelation. He is the tie that binds it all together.
I do find it interesting that many Christians throw around words that are, at best, complex in meaning, assuming everyone within earshot will apply the same meaning to what they say. When, in reality, if you asked each person to define the word (including the person who originally said it) many of them wouldn’t be able to do it. What a great challenge to really think about the “Christian” words we use.
Amy recently posted..Covering all the bases
I completely agree. Trying to “be biblical” is almost like trying to live according to the letter of the law. We ought allow ourselves to live out grace and love, the life that Jesus wants for us.
Ashley Pichea recently posted..Caffeinated Conversations {10.28.11}
It’s also worth noting that many of us are stuck trying to read the bible strictly from a modernist, impericist viewpoint, which all of the bible is written in a pre-historical style. Frustration ensues.
Have you been in my head? For about 3 months i have wrestled with this very issue in light of a theology out there that keeps pushing for living according to Biblical patterns and if there isn’t a biblical pattern for it, then it must be wrong.
I wish I had written it all down, but unfortunately the best and most articulate thoughts often come when i am busy doing something else, but perhaps I can find them again:)
I am very conservative and old-fashioned about many things, but I believe that there is a stark difference between following biblical patterns and obeying God’s direct commands and principles.
I also believe that everything in the Old Testament that we need to obey was re-affirmed by Jesus Himself. (For example:the ten commandments)
And that everything else falls under the Old Covenant and was merely a shadow of things to come (the New Covenant.)
Since I don’t want to write a book here, I guess that will have to suffice, but I love your thoughts here!
P.S. (I noticed you referenced your friends and family who are conservative. Does that mean, by comparison you aren’t?)
Michelle recently posted..Snow in October?! Have a Heart!
I never read this book But i am really interested to read it sounds like interesting..I am looking forward to find this book..
Marquitta recently posted..How To Get Rid of Cellulite On Back of Thighs
Great post! Be biblical for me is, doing a thing in accordance with law of God and law of people. We should do what is right and never hurting other people.
Richard recently posted..My Arowana Is Not Eating No Matter What I Do !!!