Biblical Christianity

Biblical Christianity is a title I'm getting tired of hearing about, because, quite frankly, it is meaningless. Generally, it is only useful in as much as it lets one group make itself feel superior to whichever group it deems as not being biblical. It is extremely rare that such a designation actually distinguishes those who follow the Bible from some group of Christians that (clearly to everyone else) do not.

Tonight I ran into a site objecting to neo-orthodoxy. Now, some folks have proper objections to neo-orthodoxy and that's perfectly fine. Neo-orthodoxy's lack of insistence on a “literal” interpretation of the Bible is usually what rubs people the wrong way. But even that is difficult to say, because it is not that neo-orthodox theologians typically seek to interpret literal parts of the Bible metaphorically, but rather a debate exists on whether this or that part of the Bible was intended to be interpreted literally. Everyone (or nearly everyone) interprets some parts of the Bible metaphorically (parables being the clearest example). Regardless, part of the misunderstanding of neo-orthodoxy is judging it by the standards of its foes, the neo-orthodox Christian could very well have perfectly Evangelical views on the Bible and still adhere to the basic beliefs of neo-orthodoxy. That neo-orthodoxy does not insist on such does not mean it is anti-Bible or anything like that.

But, I digress. Neo-orthodoxy has its set of claims, and the objector I ran into tonight was busy defending a differing set of claims as “Biblical.” Now, one might ask, how does one define Biblical? I would expect the person would race off to Scripture and try to demonstrate their position as Biblical by, well, using the Bible. But, as often is the case, the person did not, they simply quoted a statement of faith that objected to neo-orthodoxy's views. The reader was expected to assume neo-orthodoxy was unbiblical because an extrabiblical statement of faith said so. Oooookay.

Now, if someone responded by quoting another extrabiblical source — oh, let's say the pope — precisely how do you think this guy would response? I betcha he'd say “Sola Scriptura!” Never mind the fact that he himself was happily quoting authorities outside of the Bible for his own purposes.

The term Biblical Christianity just isn't useful. Every Christian probably thinks he or she is part of “Biblical Christianity.” So, for starters its useless. The fact that often claims in support of “Biblical Christianity” come from places other than the Bible just serves to increase the absurdity.