An Orthodox Biblical Worldview

In case my analysis of biblical paradigms yesterday might be a little unsettling, I thought I would follow it up with how an "eyes wide open," orthodox biblical worldview might work.

1. First we need organizing principles, a mechanism to prioritize biblical material. Ordinarily, we use tradition to do this without knowing it. An "eyes wide open" mechanism would do this intentionally. What are the most appropriate organizing principles if we want an "orthodox" biblical worldview?

Ultimately, common or consensus Christianity is the most logical answer for what the ultimate organizing principle of an orthodox biblical worldview is. Orthodox Christian belief and practice was settled in the controversies of the early church. Was the Arian or the Nicene interpretation of the Scriptures correct? The church decided that it was the Nicene. [1]

What are we talking about? We are talking about the early councils and creeds. We are talking about the Apostle's Creed and the Nicene Creed. We are talking about Chalcedon. We are talking about:

• The Trinitarian nature of God as three persons but one God
• God as creator out of nothing
• The great value and yet fallenness of humanity
• God's walk and revelation to his people -- first Israel but then the church
• The incarnation of Christ
• The bodily resurrection of Christ
• The saving work of Christ
• The work of the Holy Spirit in the church and the world
• The church as God's apostolic agent in the world
• The resurrection of the dead, the second coming of Christ, and the eternity of God's kingdom

These can all be considered as organizing principles and a lens through which we organize the individual data of Scripture. They are the scaffolding that both corresponds to material in the text and yet affirms a certain prioritization of the text. 

If we were to find any biblical materials that seem to be in tension with these principles, those texts would either be considered unclear or given a subordinate role in our biblical theology.

2. We should acknowledge the role of the church -- the community of faith -- as a co-participant in this biblical perspective. For example, it was the community of faith that recognized the canon. That is to say, Scripture would not have clear boundaries without the church. Should the Gnostic Gospels be included? It was the consensus of the church that said no. [2]

The consensus of faith is the tradition of the community of faith. There are many points of disagreement within the body of Christ (e.g., the nature of predestination). These are not essential pieces of an orthodox biblical worldview (although they feature prominently one way or another in Reformed and Arminian biblical worldviews). They are "doctrine" and not "dogma" from an orthodox biblical worldview. [3]

3. To say that the contours of a biblical worldview require some external scaffolding is not to deny that this scaffolding has roots in the biblical texts. For example, it would seem that the books of the Bible are unanimous in their affirmation that there is one God who created the world (we will assume that Esther implied this). 

If we were to dig deeper, we would find that there is still variety of understanding with regard to what this meant to various biblical authors. But the existence and oneness of God is a clear guiding organizational principle which is the unanimous assumption of Scripture.

It is also thoroughly orthodox for us to suggest that the New Testament provides an authoritative perspective on the Old Testament. [4] A non-Christian Jew would not agree with this organizing of the biblical materials. That is to say, the New Testament understanding of the Old does not clearly arise from an inductive reading of the Old Testament texts themselves.

Within the New Testament , we can say that Jesus the Christ (as understood by the consensus of faith) provides the organizing principle of the New Testament texts. The New Testament texts are also incarnated in contexts, so Jesus gives us the "line call" on how we should approach texts whose meanings or application seem less clear. [5]

Ethically, the twin love command -- love God and love neighbor -- provide the organizing principle of all biblical ethics, including New Testament ethics.  Yes, Psalm 137:9 celebrates the murder of Babylonian babies, but Jesus' command to love our enemies provides an authoritative lens for the appropriation of this verse (Matt. 5:43-48). [6]

4. On issues where the consensus of faith does not have a clear position, individual denominations or traditions may. But these are not part of an orthodox biblical worldview. They are "adiophora," matters that are not essential or at the core.

I believe it is possible to see this orthodox biblical worldview in the biblical texts in two ways. First, we can redefine the words as necessary and flatten the text into a single coherent narrative. Alternatively, we can read the texts in context and situate them in a "flow of revelation" that is ultimately pointing toward orthodoxy. In this second approach, the earlier biblical texts are on a journey toward orthodoxy.

5. An orthodox biblical worldview thus trusts that the Holy Spirit was guiding the church to the right understanding of Scripture. This is a "trilateral" between Spirit, Church, and Scripture. 

Where is reason? It is inevitable. It is in every sentence of this post. It is in every sentence of anyone disagreeing with this post. The key is that we reason with faith seeking understanding, open to God's illumination.

[1] Note that since the debate was the Bible versus the Bible, it required an outside mechanism to decide (see comments on Godel's incompleteness theorem in the previous post). By faith we believe that the Spirit led the Church to the right decision.

[2] Again, there is no verse that says, "It's Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John folks." The decision on the contents of the canon had to be made from outside the canon looking in.

[3] Here I allude to the old idea that some beliefs are dogma and written in blood. Some are doctrine and written in ink. But others are more in pencil. 

[4] I sense I might get some push back here from some Old Testament scholars, but, in my opinion, they are likely changing the meaning of the Old Testament text to accomplish what I am arguing for without admitting it.

[5] Again, I can imagine some pushing back on this. As with the objectors in #4, I might argue that those pushing back have possibly already altered their interpretations of the New Testament to fit the creeds and done what I am arguing for without admitting it.

[6] I can see others objecting to this. However, almost like the unanimous faith in one God in Scripture, the love command is the most pervasive ethic in all of Scripture and both Matthew 22 and Romans 13 say as much.