There’s an awful lot of straw man raising in Christian circles. This is related to the labelling that goes on. We like to present something that we disagree with in the worst possible light. One recent article suggests the following:

By “biblicist” I mean the tendency of some evangelical Christians to disregard the historic, orthodox creeds of the universal church while at the same time making themselves the only trustworthy interpreters of Scripture.

What is disappointing about this article on a well respected web site is the naïve use of the straw man. First of all the writer defines what he means by ‘biblicist’, whilst then castigating this self created straw man for making himself the only trustworthy interpreter of Scripture. The writer then asserts his own ability to define a biblicist before taking exception to his own personal definition. This is simply circular and of no value to anyone.

Further, if we consider the tendency of some evangelical Christians to disregard the historic, orthodox creeds of the universal church, what are we actually saying? Is our faith a matter of Scripture plus historic, orthodox creeds of the universal church? If so, then Martin Luther was a biblicist. Luther’s issues were with the non Scriptural accretions proffered by the universal church of the time that added to and warped the straightforward meaning of the Bible. Luther, in effect demanded ‘chapter and verse’ for everything that he would believe. He resolved to return to Scripture, and Scripture alone, for all matters of faith.

I’m appalled that any thinking Christian can mock ‘give me chapter and verse for that’, and also link that with the polar opposite of ‘I opened my Bible and God told me to do this’. Surely, in Christian terms, we can do nothing less than demand chapter and verse for any proposition that we are asked to believe? Surely when the creeds and confessions were agreed they were based solidly on Scripture? If not, then how can we confess them?

Martin Luther could go no further than what he found in the Bible. By the definition above that makes him a biblicist. While we cannot accept uncritically everything that Luther believed or supposed, one thing he did do was bring the Church back to a biblical understanding, rejecting tradition where it differed from the teaching of the Bible. That changed the face of Christianity for the better in much the same way as Josiah’s finding the Book of the Law revived and reformed Judah’s relationship with God.

Just like the Greeks in Paul’s Athens who spent their time in nothing but hearing or telling something new we love to think that there’s something new to hear or suppose, but in terms of theological truth, for the Christian there’s nothing that has not already been given. It may be new to us, but it’s been there in Scripture since it was written.

So let’s stop with the straw men and the labels. Let’s not be of Paul, or Apollos, or Luther, or anyone else, straightforwardly not peddlers of the Word but sincere seekers after the truth that God has given.