Thanks for visiting my blog, Serving Bread. Here you'll read stories, insights, reflections and ramblings from a campus minister, father, husband and Jesus-follower. If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to the RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
My friend, a pastor, and I recently had a conversation about the term “Bible-believing”. This term, “Bible-believing” Christian or Church has emerged recently in the vocabulary of some churches and national (Christian) figureheads. The term has even made it into wikipedia, which has its own set of observations, “Frequently hyphenated as Bible-believer. Often expressed as Bible-believing Christian or Bible-believing Church (with or without hyphen).
Bible-believing is an awkward term. Ask two pastors of different denominations, and they may have their own criteria of what it means to identify someone or a church as a bible-believer. One website mentioned that all Christians are Bible-believers because the scriptures inform our worldview. However, I can safely say that there are many people who consider themselves Christian (by culture and even by faith) but do not hold to the authority of scripture.
The Barna research people had determined some criteria of what would identify someone as Bible-believing. And in their research, they found that only 4% of youth can be deemed as Bible-believing. But beyond the research and the empirical qualifications of a Bible-believer, the term has come to refer to a particular strand of Christians who are dissatisfied of the Evangelical movement in the US. The evangelical movement has embraced liberals as well as conservatives (politically and theologically) in its ranks. And a new strand of churches and church-leaders are taking up a new label of “Bible-believing” to especially communicate separation from the liberal ranks.
Sean Gonsalves, for the Cape Cod Times, implies that Christian Fundamentalists are re-marketing themselves as Bible-believing Christians. In my observations of where and how I hear the term, he’s on to something. Frank Pastore and other conservative Christian leaders take issue with Tony Campolo and Jim Wallis who both identify themselves as evangelicals, yet do not tow the conservative line (both theologically and politically). Campolo and Wallis are not soft on moral sins as some liberal theologians might be, but they do have a different worldview than the Christian Right.
In my observations, Bible-believing has taken on to refer to a particular strand of Christianity that is tied to certain conservative theological and political positions. It is a clever term that will win converts and alienate those who may disagree with tenets of the platform. (I don’t know many evangelical Christians who are not Bible-believers). Rhetoric is an important tool in marketing, and the Christian Right seems to be capitalizing on that language.
So am I a Bible-believing Christian? YES… I mean No… I mean yes… i mean … you know…
-----
If you enjoyed this post, be sure to grab the RSS feed. Also, please take a moment to submit this post through "Share This" above.
-----
|
Related Posts: |
Just another way to bring division. Protestantism started by breaking away and now we just can’t stop even when it becomes destructive.
My take on it is: Christians who use this term to describe themselves or their group want to distinguish themselves from “liberals.” It is a reaction, I think, to the hijacking of their faith which they feel has taken place by liberal theology over the past 100 years or so. The problem is, “Bible-believing” today most often means biblical literalism. Many “Bible-believing-Christians” I read and hear believe less in the what is actually written in their Bibles than in the traditions of whatever groups they were reared in.
Anyone care to pursue the discussion further?
Hey Charles–Good thoughts! too bad that this post is almost a month old and buried in the archives. You do bring up a good point in that: 1. It’s a reaction; 2. The term doesn’t mean much apart from a label. However, it’s a darn good term to seperate from anything liberal (whatever that means)
While it’s too simplistic construct a box and label it “liberal,” I think it is possible to broadly define “liberalism” when it applies to Theology. Basically it’s the whole school of thought that subscribes to the “historical-critical-method” of interpreting scripture and the tenets of the faith.
Basic assumptions:
1. The supernatural cannot be verified
2. There is a natural, historical, “rational” explanation for the testimony of Christendom and its Bible.
This so-called “higher criticism” tends to reach certain conclusions, namely that divine creation, miracles and resurrection are either
A. Legends and myths purposely cirulated by the apostles or early Church fathers to add religious credibility to their movement
B. Allegorical literature. Falsely understood to be actual events.
C. Testimony which the writers BELIEVED really happened (i.g. Paul’s vision of the exalted Christ) but are purely subjective/psychological phenomenae.
This CAN in turn result in a relativisic moral code which justifies “situational ethics” or pragmatism. In any case, the “gospel” preached will be socially oriented, emphasize tolerance and good will, rather than assert that “there is but one name given to men by which we can be saved” (Peter’s speech in Acts 2).
That evangelicals and other more traditional Christians reject this is understandable. The big problem with “Bible-believing” is that it has taken its place even above “God-believing” in the creeds or “Statements of Faith” in most evangelical churches. Or run this simple test–look up “What we believe,” or “Our Statement of Faith” for a half-dozen evangelical organizations on the internet and you’ll typically find something to the effect that the Bible is “the infallible word of God” placed even before “I believe in God, the eternal creator,” etc. etc. Isn’t that telling?
Sadly, veneration of the scriptures turns out very often to be veneration of mere TRADITIONS (and other misunderstandings). Or am I off in left field?