Radical Biblicism

Few things really bother me.

I confess... I get annoyed by certain things. Red lights, lots of unnecessary noise... election cycle phone calls. Theologically, there is a lot to be troubled about... but one thing gets me more than any other within the church: Many believers refuse to embrace a true, radical Biblicism.

What is the right structure for a church government? For what purpose did Jesus come preachign and teaching? Why should we pray? Why do bad things happen? Should women be pastoring churches? Why do churches exist? Does God think divorce is okay, in some situations? What is God's desire for each and every Christian? Is abortion immoral? Does the Holy Spirit speak God's will to us? Does God really send people to Hell?

Important questions? Sure they are. Simple answers? Sometimes, but often Christians disagree.

What is important is not what we think, but what the Bible "thinks." There is a system of thought revealed in the Scriptures, and our thinking needs to be informed by the Scriptures, not our feelings. We are called to think intelligently, but our thinking needs to be informed by the scriptures, not vice versa. So often we allow our theology to dictate what the text of scripture means, rather than allowing the scripture to inform our theology. So often what I think and feel becomes the standard by which I judge the Word, rather than allowing the Word to judge my thoughts and feelings.

To be a Christian who is following God with all your heart and soul and mind and strength means to fully submit every thought and intention of the heart to the Word of God. If we're not convinced, from Scripture, from the whole of Scripture, then we can't say we are acting in good faith... at least not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Jack Crabtree writes a compelling article I think every Christian needs to grapple with. Look at this quote:

I have followed with interest the latest battle for the Bible. The committee of scholars that determines the text of the New International Version of the Bible has apparently been working on a revision. In this revision they intended to bring their translation into the 1990s by purging it of language that might denote one gender to the exclusion of the other. World magazine, getting wind of the proposed revision, created quite a stir by publicly criticizing it.

Both sides frame the controversy as a debate over what constitutes an accurate translation. But in truth, neither side's preferred translation is more accurate than the other. The NIV's original translation of Genesis 1:26-27 ("Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image....' So God created man in his own image...male and female he created them") is no more nor less accurate than the gender-neutralized translation ("Then God said, 'Let us make human beings in our image....' So God created human beings in his own image...male and female he created them"). If one translation is preferred over the other, it is on grounds other than accuracy.

Crabtree goes on to articulate that difference between being Radically Biblical and just finding an idea you like in the text and calling it "what the Bible teaches" and therefore Biblical.

I read this article about five years ago, and it challenged me. Let me challenge you: Print it out. Pore over it. Give it some time, and let it inform your thinking. You won't regret it.

Note: The article contains what some might consider "Adult Themes." If you're an adult, they shouldn't offend you. There's no simple way of talking about certain subjects, but Crabtree does it with class. His argumentation is powerful, biblical, and convicting.