Beliefism’s Co-joined Twin, Biblism
“Beliefism” which for some people, is living as a parasite off its co-joined twin, “Bibleism”. Now, let me be clear, I believe in the authority of scripture, I believe that it is the inspired word of God, I have and continue to study it. However, the truth of the matter is that there is a lot of abuse which goes on around the bible. So many people become “Beliefists” because they cannot see the difference between their interpretation of scriptures and scripture itself. There is also a tendency to insist that we cannot understand any part of scripture as being mythological or allegorical or otherwise not accurate as a history book without discrediting scripture, and therefor God. I like to call this bible abuse. It is a form of beliefism wherein a person’s faith is in scriptures rather than in the living God.
Anyhow, what really brought this to mind was something I read last night. I’ve been skimming through How People Grow by Dr. Henry Cloud and Dr. John Townsend and came across this line which just hit me as odd:
I don’t know if she fully understood the depth of theology she communicated in that one answer to how she made it trhough. But the Bible does understand it. It commands it.” (emphasis mine)
Now, I know the verses from Hebrews (“The word of God is living and active and sharper than any two edged sword” Hebrews 4:12). And I do know what they’re saying here. However, I still wonder about a Christian author who attributes understanding, feelings and such to a book – even the bible. It seems to me that it would be more accurate, and more helpful for the proper mindset of the reader to say, “God understands this and that is why He put it in His word”? Maybe I’m nitpicking here.
Regardless, the wording struck me as odd and reminded me of a parody I read a while back at The Wittenburg Door:
Professors at Dallas Theological Seminary published a position paper Tuesday eliminating the concept of “God” and/or “Lord” from Christian worship and replacing it with worship of the Bible only. The step had been anticipated for several years and was considered a formality within the actual “Bible only” movement . . . “One worry at this early stage is that . . . believers . . . won’t fully understand the implications of worshipping the book itself instead of a universal force who either wrote the book or spoke it into existence or otherwise caused its appearance. “That’s the same thing, though,,” said Paul Crouch of the Trinity Broadcasting Network when asked about it, “because the Bible is magic. It’s a magic book. The only difference now is we’re not making a big deal about where the magic came from.”
It goes on to say:
The only other issue that still needs to be worked out theologically is how to preach the literal truth of the one Bible without mentioning either God, Yahweh, Jehovah, the Lord, etc. “But actually, wasn’t that always the problem?” said Rasmussen. “Too many names, too many concepts. We’re just telescoping all that stuff into one term. We’re re-branding. If you have to talk about a higher power, you just say Ricky Ricardo. It’s consumer-friendly, everybody knows Ricky Ricardo, everybody likes Ricky Ricardo, and it’s still in syndication in most markets so it’s hip without being ridiculously up-to-date.”
Well, I thought it was funny 😀