Biblical but not Christian
I watched the Louis Theroux documentary, the other day, on the Phelps family and got into a conversation about whether what Pastor Phelps was saying was biblical or not.1 My point was that, actually, though we may not want to label his views as “Christian”, – though, no-doubt, some might! – I do reckon you could call them “biblical”. I am definitely of the opinion that something can be “biblical” and not “Christian” – and vice versa!
Pastor Phelps makes my point very well: in an online article entitled “’God Loves Everyone’ The Greatest Lie Ever Told” he lists “701 [p]assages [of scripture] [p]roving God’s [h]ate & [w]rath for [m]ost of [m]ankind”! (italics mine) Now I know we might want to question his interpretation of many of the references he cites, but that is partly my point: it all boils down to either interpretation and/or the acceptance that in many of these passages, God does not come off in the best possible light.
My own personal position is that much of what is written in the bible - especially but not exclusively in the Old Testament - is ethically distasteful to the modern mind; and not only that, I believe, the Old Testament paints a poor image of God: he (the masculine personal pronoun intended) is a misogynistic, narcissistic, judgemental, tribalistic, pedantic, schizophrenic, controlling, violent and vengeful personality; the Old Testament god is clearly not worthy of our adoration or worship.
From this perspective the bible is definitely not Christian! The God I worship, the God revealed in the person of Jesus Christ, is very different. This is the God who teaches us to turn the other cheek and love our enemies. And who demonstrates his ethic of love in the ultimate of self sacrificial acts.
In my view, and I would suggest in the wider Christian view – though, perhaps, not very often explicitly stated, and despite the opposite sometimes being explicitly stated in many evangelical circles – Christ relativises all that came before. His ethic of love is the foundation of our hermeneutics, and it is on this cornerstone we build our understanding. Only according to this reading of scripture am I prepared to accept the bible as Christian.
- For more from the Phelps family see: http://www.godhatesfags.com [↩]
2 Responses to “Biblical but not Christian”
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
isc
Said this on July 13th, 2008 at 12:44am:Two comments:
1. I think that you can be totally “biblical” (whatever that really means) by agreeing with all of the above. Even if you completely disregard the Gospels and their witness to Jesus and take your propositionalised theology and ethics from the NT epistles(as I think so many conservative evangelicals unwittingly do), you still have to reckon with Galatians 5:13-14 - “You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love. The entire law is summed up in a single command: Love your neighbour as yourself”. Also Romans 13:9, “The commandments, ‘Do not commit adultery’, ‘Do not murder’, Do not steal’, ‘Do not covet,’ and whatever other commandment there may be [interesting!], are summed up in this one rule: ‘Love your neighbour as yourself’. Love does not harm its neighbour. Therefore, love is the fulfilment of the law’. And there are others. The problem with fundamentalism and some conservative evangelicalism is that it’s got its head wedged so firmly in the text (’the letter’) that its proponents just can’t seem to take a step back and see the bigger picture and the wider point (’the spirit’). ‘The Letter kills, but the Spirit gives life’, as it says. And seeing the bigger picture that stands behind the legalistic, proof-texting, can’t see the wood for the trees, ignoring Christ’s own message (in what way is that Christian?) approach shows Phelps et al (and all other narrow, legalistic, judgmental ‘Christians’ to have totally missed the point and to be a million miles away from the spirit of Christ.
2. I read this in the Guardian today. It’s by the (liberal, therefore not beloved of conservative evangelicals or postmodernist ex-fundamentalists) Bishop Gene Robinson, but I found that it made a pretty basic point very well. Ok, so he’s misunderstood what evangelicals actually believe (so he doesn’t ‘get’ the opposition and then criticises a caricature of them - what’s new? Everyone does that, it seems to me). But the positive point he makes is a good one, I think,
AJ
Said this on July 13th, 2008 at 4:33pm:Hey ISC, thanks for your comments. Did you mean to include a link with the second comment?