"Unbiblical" when what the situation really is is "I really, really DON'T like that" OR "I disagree" OR "Your words challenge my deepest held idolatries posing as genuine Christian faith."
This euphemism seems to be more prevalent today than I remember it -- or maybe I just ran into it less in the past. Of course, what it implies is that there is a consistent, reliable, and mutually agreed upon hermeneutic for a particular passage, or for the entire narrative arc of the Bible.
I ran into this at the Cornerstone Festival this summer, while on a panel discussing gays in the church. The two anti-gay members of the panel, both "ex-gays" who were affiliated with Exodus International, repeatedly stated that theirs was the "biblical" position, and that opposing views were "unbiblical." They said this with no anger, and really no passion. It was said matter-of-factly, and simply, as though no counter-argument could possibly be summoned.
Related to this euphemism, and even more disturbing to me, is this:
I don't say this to criticize Origins, since I support them and hope for their success. Just to point put that the website copywriter fell prey to an assumption that the hermeneutical posture of biblical inerrancy is "higher" (aka, better) than a an infallibilist or narrative or other posture. It also seems to ignore the history of biblical interpretation, by which such theological giants as Augustine and Aquinas used allegorical interpretations that we today would find downright wacky.
In the end, the phrase a "high view of scripture" is clearly a euphemism meant to divide the body of Christ. Let's euthanize it.
"Well, I hold to a higher view of scripture than _________."This came up not too long ago when the website for the Origins Project website was launched. It stated in several places that Origins was a network committed to a "high view of scripture," to which many in the emergent community asked, "Relative to what, to whom?" That language has since been removed from the Origins website, but the implication is clear: Some (aka, emergent) have a "low" view of scripture, others have a "high" view.
I don't say this to criticize Origins, since I support them and hope for their success. Just to point put that the website copywriter fell prey to an assumption that the hermeneutical posture of biblical inerrancy is "higher" (aka, better) than a an infallibilist or narrative or other posture. It also seems to ignore the history of biblical interpretation, by which such theological giants as Augustine and Aquinas used allegorical interpretations that we today would find downright wacky.
In the end, the phrase a "high view of scripture" is clearly a euphemism meant to divide the body of Christ. Let's euthanize it.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Sure, lets get rid of the idea that anything could possibly be unbiblical for any reason whatsoever. The entire idea of having to be biblical places way too much pressure on me. And I hate pressure. So we can say that it is unbiblical to use the "euphemism" unbiblical. First of all, it seems to me that you need an accurate definition of the word "euphemism." So here you go: "the use of a word or phrase that is less expressive or direct but considered less distasteful, less offensive, etc. than another."
I think that someone who views a position as unbiblical, and has the guts to say so, is not being soft or indirect. In fact, it seems to me that they are being exceptionally direct in their assessment of a particular position. This sort of directness is found in Jesus Christ, Paul, John, Peter, in fact, this sort of directness is found everywhere in both the Old and New Testaments. But don't let that little fact stop you from euthanizing it. Heaven forbid you would seek to follow Paul's pattern! The term "unbiblical" is NOT a euphemism in any sense of the word. It is used to describe one's view of a position. Regardless of whether or not that person's opinion is correct or not, that is their view. And I bet you that even you too think some views are unbiblical also, don't ya? For instance, the practice of strapping a bomb to one's person in the name of God is one I bet you think is an unbiblical belief and certainly an unbiblical view. This kind of semantic hypocrisy screams loudly that one is either just a rebel for the sake being a rebel, or they are simply and exceptionally misinformed.
Ed,
Try reading Tony again, this time without the assumption that he is the devil incarnate. That is not what he is saying, at all.
semantic hypocrisy?
where?
Tony is speaking about a particular deployment of the term. He's calling for the cessation of that deployment...
"Unscriptural" is better. "Not scriptural" is best.
Panthera
October 22, 2009 5:00 PM
...my husband is a great guy
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Word of God is clear that "marriage" is the union of a man, as husband, and a woman, as his wife.
If he's a dude and you're a dude, and you claim that he's the husband, what are YOU? You can't be a wife. Therefore, your union cannot be a Godly union.
Where, in the Word of God, do you find the union of a man with a man, or a woman with a woman, Godly? Try making a scriptural case.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.