Friday, September 23, 2011
I have a big problem with the term, The Biblical Worldview. It assumes that whatever reality or truth is out there, we somehow have to justify it or connect it to the Bible. As a Christian, I think this is a shabby use of scripture, which consists of particular books written by particular authors with particular intentions. What if I believed that the literary forms are also inspired? Then I would have to take Genesis as myth/poetry, gospels as testimonies from individual perspectives, epistles as letters to particular people and Revelation and prophets as apocalyptic metaphor and social commentary because these are the types of literature they are, and were originally received as. I think it is the product of Roman imperialism and Greek philosophy that seeks to totalize and universalize the sacred texts, then distill them into dogmatic formulae. I think that is not only a shabby way to read them, but also a lifeless, dull way, and, well, irreverent. "One ring to rule them all" type of thing.
Part of the emphasis of the Reformation was that the Bible applies to all of life. But that does not take into account that the "all" in life, such as humanly created institutions, and theologies that support them, are not in themselves Biblical, nor did they even exist in Biblical times. In particular, the Dutch neo-reformed theologian, Abraham Kuyper, propagated the idea of a pillared society, upheld by the various institutions of family, church and state, and many smaller ones. This is the way the Christian dominionists in the USA view society, by trying to take over each of these "pillars" for God. It's just another "manifest destiny" if you ask me. Fascist to the core. I mean, what if we went and applied the Bible to the Hindu caste system. Does that make it "biblical"? Hell no. You can dress up a skeleton in different clothes, but it's still a skeleton. And it's still dead.
Posted by Sara at 8:55 AM