The Problem with a Narrow Scope on the Bible

Some time ago, I was in a class at a church I was attending, wherein the biblical worldview was compared and contrasted with various other worldviews. I found it curious on several counts that the Bible was purported to espouse one worldview and that the view of the teachers of the class was that there was but one biblical worldview–which, of course, they had handled like a surgeon wielding a battle axe. A question the teachers of the class would often posit was, “How does any other worldview compare to the biblical worldview?”

Much as they may have tried to be open-minded and understanding of other worldviews, the teachers of the class taught that there was indeed only one biblical worldview to be held as true. If, however, we were to do but a superficial survey of all the different churches and denominations therewith in a small square acre of space in any place in the United States, I dare to say that there would not be only one biblical worldview espoused!

Furthermore, the Bible itself has more than one worldview to espouse. Indeed, there is no one biblical worldview because there are many! Not only that, but the view that the Bible has but one worldview to present is a worldview itself. That worldview I call into question–precisely on the grounds that there are many various and variegated worldviews in the biblical text itself, let alone many ways in which to interpret and apply the Bible, that is, to read and understand the Bible. Additionally, the numerous ways in which the Bible was written and edited, copied and transcribed itself testifies of the manifold formations and reformations of the Bible.

It is far more accurate when speaking of a worldview regarding the Bible to indicate the worldviews of the Bible, both from within itself–from the testament of its own pages–and from without–from those who have superimposed their own philosophical or theological understanding back onto the Scriptures. The Bible is no book with one worldview; rather, it is a book of a myriad of worldviews.

To read the Bible as possessing one worldview is, as aforementioned, a worldview in itself, one with which one must contend and which one must defend, if it is to be held as reputable at all. The evidence of the Bible itself, however, contravenes this view, for in the Scriptures, there are many views and worldviews, not merely espoused by the characters of the Bible, but also by the authors and editors of the Bible. The documentary hypothesis of the Old Testament and the sources theories of the New Testament, in fact, may be said to be founded upon such an understanding of the Bible. Whether or not the documentary hypothesis or sources theories are accepted, though, the mere fact that numerous authors and editors wrote and rewrote the many books of the Bible in various places at vastly different times with different aims, ambitions, and motives indicates almost demonstrably that there is no single worldview of the Bible.

To be sure, the Bible has many worldviews sewn together in threadbare fashion, making a theological garment, which, in fact, has many holes all throughout. For the biblical material itself with which we have to work is not suited to make some mantel with seamless stitching to keep warm the hearts of the faithful, as each book, perhaps even each verse or chapter, while being interdependent upon the others, is independent of the others in that each beholds in itself the truth, the view, the message, the worldview it seeks to propagate.

Indeed, the Bible itself is a complex web of texts of many various, variegated, and even varying worldviews. Though it may be purported that the Bible tells one overarching story or metanarrative, that does not thereby denigrate the assertion that, within that metanarrative, there are many various and varying worldviews therein. Even, however, the notion that there is but one metanarrative must give way for the many narratives, and possibly many metanarratives, all across the Bible.

An example here might suffice: the gospels purportedly concur one with another, their stories line up in some measure or degree and they agree in the overall picture that each one paints; however, each gospel has its own view of the world and its own angle to espouse and demonstrate. The Gospel of Matthew, for instance, might be said to share about the humanity of Jesus, whereas that of John shares about the divinity of Jesus. Thus, there stand at least two different views of the same subject, namely, Jesus and his identity. One might say, however, that these are but two perspectives of the same material–and hardly have varying worldviews: the worldviews of the authors of these gospels are one and the same, namely, monotheistic, Jesus as the Christ, Jesus as the Son of God, etc.

To press the issue further, compare the synoptic gospels one with another, which are seemingly more aligned than is that of John. Matthew portrays Jesus as a new kind of prophet like Moses, bringing forth the law of the Lord, particularly demarcating exclusive boundaries for the people of God; while Luke portrays Jesus as inclusive and accepting of all persons, including the ever disregarded Gentiles; and Mark portrays Jesus as a man, fully human, though also as fully divine, a kind of Caesar of Caesars, ruler of all the world. Inasmuch as the three synoptics agree, their agreement makes stark their disagreement in even greater detail.

For instance, the fact that Matthew has Jesus’ great sermon on a mount, while Luke has it on a plain demonstrates not only different views for the utilization of Jesus as a kind of literary motif or mechanism but also reinforces that at least two different worldviews were at play in the scribing of these at least these two gospels.

Since the beginning of the Christian movement, there have been attempts to smooth over the differences of the books of the Bible, particularly trying to harmonize the synoptic gospels. Apparently, such differences pose a problem for faith. Apparently, there must be only one worldview in which to believe, even as there is one God in which to believe–albeit in three persons! To further complicate the matter, the harmonization of Paul, James, and John seems nearly impossible, except with extreme mental theological gymnastics.

This analysis is not meant, of course, to denigrate the miraculous agreement of the books and authors/editors of the Bible, but only to point out the very plain and simple fact that no one overarching story, metanarrative, or ideology is evident from the books of the Bible: each one makes its own case for its own cause. That there is agreement is, in fact, wonderful, miraculous, and amazing. That there is not always agreement is to be expected. We ought not shun the fact of the matter for simple predilections for some ideological bent.