Some Thoughts on a "Christian" Phrase
One of the statements that many Christian radio stations make is that Christians should have a "Biblical world view." I have to admit that I have never been exactly clear as to what that means or meant. With Evangelicals shouting more and more that this is the true path of Christianity, it should also be clear as to what this means. But it isn't.
If it is to be understood as a philosophical approach, then the question becomes "which world view?" If it is to be a theological approach, then the question is, "which theology?" Is it the free grace of God spoken of by Paul? The faith without works is dead of James? The Platonic influenced arguments of the letter of Hebrews? The blessed or cursed life found in Deuteronomic thinking? Is it the apocalyptic writing of Revelation or the idea found in Daniel that faith in God doesn't require a miracle?
If it is to be a literal guide for how we view the world or understand the world, then is the meaning that Christians are to believe that the world is flat, that the sky holds back the waters, or that the role of women is to be that of property?
I can't be sure of any of this because those who use the term often utilize the term to mean something other than the options above: it means that you hold a "world view" that is in line with their preaching or teaching.
Because I can't imagine that these kinds of Christians would want to uphold levirate marriage (the brother of a deceased man being obliged to marry his brother's widow). How could they? Unless they were also proponents of polygamy. Because how could you marry your brother's widow without being single yourself. Does that mean that one brother always has to be single? Not in the Bible. Polygamy was a given. Just read the stories of David, Moses, or Solomon - especially Solomon.
Of course these same people will utilize the Bible to condemn homosexuality. Okay. There are passages that speak about that -specifically male homosexuality. But there are other passages that speak specifically against divorce, specifically against tattoos, and far more that speak about what you can and cannot eat. Why aren't these as important?
With regard to the issue of food, how does one hold a Biblical world view on food when one very large section says you have particular dietary restrictions and the other calls all food good? The answer is usually that, as Christians, the food is all "clean" to eat. But that means that the passages in the Old Testament with regard to food are no longer valid. Then are they still inspired or infallible? Only in a historical point of view. Not for Christians.
But what about the dress codes, or some of the other laws? It all depends upon the reading of the New Testament which, for Christians, is the interpreting the Old. But that means that the world view is not truly Biblical, it is only Biblical from a particular point of view.
And they may be Creationists, which suggests the anti-science approach to the world which is justified by the idea that the world has to be understood, quite literally, through the lens of the Bible. This is to say that if the Bible doesn't address it, we don't have to either. Nor do we have to accept any views outside of the Bible.
What "Biblical world view" means is anything but clear. A "Christian" world view would be easier to narrow down. But that's not what is being said.
As an aside, perhaps one of the questions in response to those who make such a claim would be this: how can a Biblical world view throw in its support behind someone with such an un-Biblical view of the world as our President? Easy. The Vice President holds the Biblical world view for them both. Apparently.
The phrase is vague, but it is meant to be a code word for being on the same page as those who speak it. It means only what it means to the speaker. As such, it becomes something that doesn't necessarily mean anything.
If it is to be understood as a philosophical approach, then the question becomes "which world view?" If it is to be a theological approach, then the question is, "which theology?" Is it the free grace of God spoken of by Paul? The faith without works is dead of James? The Platonic influenced arguments of the letter of Hebrews? The blessed or cursed life found in Deuteronomic thinking? Is it the apocalyptic writing of Revelation or the idea found in Daniel that faith in God doesn't require a miracle?
If it is to be a literal guide for how we view the world or understand the world, then is the meaning that Christians are to believe that the world is flat, that the sky holds back the waters, or that the role of women is to be that of property?
I can't be sure of any of this because those who use the term often utilize the term to mean something other than the options above: it means that you hold a "world view" that is in line with their preaching or teaching.
Because I can't imagine that these kinds of Christians would want to uphold levirate marriage (the brother of a deceased man being obliged to marry his brother's widow). How could they? Unless they were also proponents of polygamy. Because how could you marry your brother's widow without being single yourself. Does that mean that one brother always has to be single? Not in the Bible. Polygamy was a given. Just read the stories of David, Moses, or Solomon - especially Solomon.
Of course these same people will utilize the Bible to condemn homosexuality. Okay. There are passages that speak about that -specifically male homosexuality. But there are other passages that speak specifically against divorce, specifically against tattoos, and far more that speak about what you can and cannot eat. Why aren't these as important?
With regard to the issue of food, how does one hold a Biblical world view on food when one very large section says you have particular dietary restrictions and the other calls all food good? The answer is usually that, as Christians, the food is all "clean" to eat. But that means that the passages in the Old Testament with regard to food are no longer valid. Then are they still inspired or infallible? Only in a historical point of view. Not for Christians.
But what about the dress codes, or some of the other laws? It all depends upon the reading of the New Testament which, for Christians, is the interpreting the Old. But that means that the world view is not truly Biblical, it is only Biblical from a particular point of view.
And they may be Creationists, which suggests the anti-science approach to the world which is justified by the idea that the world has to be understood, quite literally, through the lens of the Bible. This is to say that if the Bible doesn't address it, we don't have to either. Nor do we have to accept any views outside of the Bible.
What "Biblical world view" means is anything but clear. A "Christian" world view would be easier to narrow down. But that's not what is being said.
As an aside, perhaps one of the questions in response to those who make such a claim would be this: how can a Biblical world view throw in its support behind someone with such an un-Biblical view of the world as our President? Easy. The Vice President holds the Biblical world view for them both. Apparently.
The phrase is vague, but it is meant to be a code word for being on the same page as those who speak it. It means only what it means to the speaker. As such, it becomes something that doesn't necessarily mean anything.
Comments
Post a Comment