What People Mean When They Say "Biblical"

Spoiler: It Means Lots of Things

My college roommate was an international student who spoke English as a second language. Because he learned proper English and spoke it beautifully, he had little patience for American verbal tics, such as “like” (as in, “I have like so much homework this week”). And so, as a sort of Pavlovian experiment in which I was the dog, this roommate made a loud buzzing sound whenever I said like in a sentence. He did it so consistently that I heard that buzzer in my head when other people said it, even when he wasn’t around. 

Heaven help me, I can hear it now.

His legacy endures.

There are a couple words, frequently used in evangelical circles, that set off my internal buzzer today. Both are related to issues I care a lot about. One of them is the word “biblical.” The other is the word “culture.”

Between now and November, American evangelicals will talk a lot about how “biblical Christians” should vote according to “biblical values” and declare particular policy positions on a range of topics from sexuality and education, healthcare and immigration to be “biblical” or “unbiblical.” Everyone will be accused by someone else of being captive to “the culture” in one way or another. Every time it happens, I’ll hear that damned buzzer.

The word “biblical” sets the buzzer off for me for two reasons. 

First, my internal buzzer goes off when I get the feeling someone is using biblical to establish firm boundaries that put themselves in a position of authority over others. A pastor or politician may leverage biblical to signal that his or her opinion on some moral, social, or political issue is identical to that of Almighty God. Some use the term to establish their own human authority as identical to that of Almighty God. My childhood pastor often said something like, “I preach the biblical truth. If you disagree with me, your beef is with God.” This sort of leader may describe themselves as a “biblical Christian,” which I usually take to mean something like “real Christian” as opposed to “so-called Christians” who are compromised by “the culture.” It’s intended to inspire conformity. It’s intended to short-circuit questions and reflection, because to ask questions would put you in a position as judge over God. This use of biblical is a blunt instrument, and I can’t abide it.

Additionally, this use of biblical is widespread enough and harmful enough that you could be forgiven for deciding that biblical is a meaningless rhetorical term with no real value in thoughtful dialogue. I happen to think the word is worth preserving, but I get it. 

A second reason my internal buzzer goes off at biblical is when I get the feeling someone is using it in an entirely sincere and specific but unclear way. Biblical often is a shorthand term that hides a load of assumptions and logical processes that the speaker herself may be unaware of. It’s a semantic moving van that smuggles a lot of emotional and social inventory into the conversation. It’s full of significance for the person who says it but often empty of shared meaning in a conversation. When the word “biblical” comes up in a conversation about moral, social, or political issues with good, well-meaning people, my internal buzzer alerts me that we likely are headed for confusion and miscommunication.

This imprecise and value-laden but entirely sincere use of the term biblical is even more widespread than any rhetorically manipulative use. That’s why I’m not ready to jettison the term altogether. Instead, I’m motivated to be curious and to do the hard work necessary for good communication. Because our options are limited. If someone whom I judge to be sincere says, matter-of-factly, that a certain moral position or political policy is “biblical” and I disagree, I can: 

• assume he is an idiot held captive by some worldly ideology and baptizing a partisan talking point with an uncritical appeal to scripture; or 

• assume she is thoughtful and sincere and is using that word differently than I am. 

Some days the odds that the person is simply an idiot feel staggeringly high. But if the odds that she is thoughtful and sincere aren’t zero, then I feel morally obligated to have a go at good communication. And, frankly, I’m tired of us always being mystified by one another. The diversity of Christian opinion on important matters is the most normal thing in the world. But it catches us by surprise over and over. I’d like to replace judgment with curiosity, trusting that curiosity can lead to clarity. 

Consider what follows an experiment in curiosity. 

On to the Stuff

I’ve already mentioned two ways a person might use the term “biblical.” There are lots more. Some of these have to do with the contents of the Bible as literature, as in the “biblical account of creation” or the “biblical book of Job.” Something like “biblical poetry” or “biblical prophecy” would belong here, too, if what someone means is poetry or prophecy found in the Bible.**

Some uses of the term will have to do with the characteristics of the Bible, such as the languages it was written in originally (“biblical Hebrew” and “biblical Greek”), the social, cultural and historical circumstances under which the different books were written (“biblical backgrounds”), or even something so epic it sounds like it could be found in the Bible (“a cicada emergence of biblical proportions”). 

These uses are not controversial.

Controversy begins when we start talking about concepts or commandments that presumably originate with or are authorized by the Bible. In these cases, I assume that the best-faith, sincerest use of the term biblical means something like “consistent or in accord with what the Bible teaches.” 

The question remains, In what sense or in what way is my opinion consistent or in accord with what the Bible teaches? In the sections below, I’ve identified three possibilities, given examples, and tried to identify some of the assumptions and logical processes at work in them. 

Explicitly prescribed or prohibited by the Bible 

Sometimes when people say something is biblical, they are communicating that, in their view, it is explicitly prescribed or prohibited by the Bible.

Someone might say, for example, that a generous immigration policy is biblical and cite Leviticus 19:34:

“The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God.” 

They are communicating, Because the Bible explicitly prescribes generosity toward foreigners, a generous immigration policy is consistent or in accord with what the Bible teaches.

While this seems fairly cut and dried, there’s an unstated assumption operating in the background. It assumes that the action that is explicitly prescribed or prohibited is also universally and perpetually binding. That it applies to everyone, everywhere, and at all times. And, of course, people will disagree about that. Someone who believes that a different immigration policy is biblical, even though generosity toward foreigners is clearly prescribed by the Bible, will argue that the command in Leviticus is bound by a particular time and culture. It does not have the same force on us as it had on the people to whom it was originally commanded. 

Which is to say that two people can both believe that people are obligated to do what the Bible explicitly prescribes and not to what the Bible explicitly prohibits and nevertheless disagree about which explicit commands are still binding for Christians today. But they might not say (or even think) all that. They may simply say that the thing is “biblical” or “unbiblical.”

Inferred by logical deduction from a passage or situation depicted in the Bible 

Sometimes when people say something is biblical they are communicating (though they may not realize it) that, in their view, their position is inferred by logical deduction from an explicit command or a similar situation depicted in the Bible. 

Someone might say, for example, that “borders are biblical.” This claim may not be based on a particular text but on a preponderance of texts. There are lots of references (200 or more) to borders in the Bible, along the lines of Exodus 23:31: 

“I will establish your borders from the Red Sea to the Mediterranean Sea, and from the desert to the Euphrates River. I will give into your hands the people who live in the land, and you will drive them out before you.”

There isn’t an explicit command or prohibition here. To get from here to a clear moral or political imperative requires logical deduction. This process of logical deduction is often unconscious or unstated. It may go something like this: 

• If God created borders; then God must expect nations to honor, police, and defend borders.
  

• If God expects nations to honor, police, and defend borders, then honoring, governing, and defending our national borders is consistent or in accord with what the Bible teaches.

There are at least two unspoken assumptions humming in the background here. The first is the process of logical deduction. The person claiming that something is biblical in this sense is often unaware of the syllogism they’re assuming. The second assumption is the same as before: the assumption of universality. If God is concerned about borders, then anyone, anywhere, and at any time may also be concerned about borders.

That means there are at least two ways in which people could disagree about what is “biblical” in this sense. The first is that they might arrive at different conclusions through logical deduction. The second is they may disagree about what commands are universally applicable and which aren’t.

Extrapolation of a principle implicitly or explicitly expressed as an ideal in the Bible

Sometimes when people say something is biblical they are communicating that, in their view, a certain position is an application of a principle that’s either implicitly or explicitly expressed as an ideal in the Bible. 

Someone might say, for example, that vegetarianism is biblical. They reason that prior to the fall, both humans and animals ate plant-based diets. Omnivorous diets were a consequence of human sin:

“Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.” (Genesis 9:3)

This use of biblical shares the same assumptions as the previous uses. There is a logical deduction at work here. If vegetarianism is God’s creational design, then vegetarianism is consistent or in accord with what the Bible teaches. There is also an assumption of universality. A diet preferable at one time and place is regarded as preferable at all times and in all places. There’s also a third assumption: that the pattern of behavior under consideration is not merely a historical fact but rises to the level of an ideal. That is, the behavior is not simply something that did happen but something that should happen. 

So What on Earth Do We Do?

These reflections are already too long, so I’ll keep the concluding comments brief. 

First, I would say it’s no good trying to decide if someone is a liberal or a fundamentalist based on how they use the term biblical. Everyone will use it in all the ways above. This is not evidence of hypocrisy. Reading and applying the Bible is a complex undertaking and people toggle unconsciously among various meanings of the term.

Second, all the uses above require a fair amount of interpretation. It’s not as simple as “the Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it.” In every case, we are making choices about the implications of what the Bible requires of us today, whether consciously or unconsciously. The point of an exercise like this is to try to do it more consciously more often moving forward. 

Third, I hope you’ll be as curious about how you are using the term “biblical” in various conversations as you are about how others are using it. There’s an opportunity here for greater self-awareness.

Finally, the purpose of discerning what we and others mean when we claim something is biblical is not primarily to decide who’s right and who’s wrong. My goal isn’t to win. Instead, the goal is to pause long enough to see if we can discern what we mean, what the other person means, identify common ground, and move forward together toward clarity. I’m not naive enough to believe this will work every time. But I am exactly naive enough to think that, practiced in the context of a mature Chrirstian community (i.e., not Facebook), it might ease tensions and promote unity of spirit. Maybe.

Perhaps a less ambitious goal is that curiosity of this sort might help us be less surprised when Christians disagree about things and less prone to instinctively accuse the person I disagree with of being a spiritual sell out. If we achieve only that, we’ll have improved our situation considerably.

---

ICYMI: Reading the Bible in Three Dimensions

There are three dimensions in play when we read the Bible—all the time, whether we realize it or not. The more aware of them we become, and the more we engage them together, the better we can navigate the cross-cultural experience of reading the Bible.