Is this biblical?
Christians often use the word “biblical” to indicate that our approach to an issue is a simple outworking of scripture. While there are absolutes in the Christian faith, most of the time this use of the adjective is deeply problematic. Inappropriate uses of the term “biblical” often fall into four categories.
Describing an issue — whether theological or otherwise — as “biblical” is often a simple power play. Two people can look at the same set of passages and come to wildly different interpretations. Whose interpretation dominates? The interpretation from the person with more power. While this is not always bad (generally a biblical scholar’s interpretation is more trustworthy than an interpretation from a dentist), this power dynamic is particularly apparent within high-control churches: the pastor’s interpretation trumps all others.
Too often, “biblical” is used to describe a “plain reading of the text.” This is problematic not only because two people’s “plain reading” can differ depending on their education and life experience, but because it promotes the idea that one can interpret the bible correctly from a solely 21st century American viewpoint. The bible was written by and for an agrarian community in the Ancient Near East. Failure to understand the historical and cultural context of the bible leads to “plain readings” that are simply eisegesis.
Proclaiming that your interpretation of scripture is “biblical” often ignores the centuries of debate and nuance around certain issues. For example, describing complementarianism as “biblical womanhood” glosses over the textual criticism issues (for instance, replacing “Junia” with “Junius” or “Mary” with “Martha”), the scholarly work of innumerable Christians, and more.
Appending “biblical” to secondary issues dilutes the impact of the word. There are issues that warrant the term “biblical”: primary theological issues laid out in the words of Jesus and the creeds of the early ecumenical councils. Orthodox Christianity affirms that Jesus is both fully human and fully divine. We worship “one God in trinity and the Trinity in unity, neither confusing the persons nor dividing the divine being.” Is there one “biblical” method of raising your children? There is not.
Why does this matter? Because abusive churches and pastors will twist the bible to justify their actions and label their abuse as “biblical.”
CFC members have raised important questions because Rick Sinclair and his leadership team did not report child sexual abuse. In response, the CFC pastors have employed such arguments as “I find no explicit biblical mandate that tells me if and when I must report a crime” and “the people who are raising concerns aren’t doing it in a biblical manner.” CFC pastors weaponize the word “biblical” to defend their failure to protect vulnerable children. They demand a “biblical case” for reporting child sexual abuse.
CFC pastors assert that they are the ones who clearly understand what is “biblical,” thereby gaslighting survivors into believing that they are to blame for their own abuse.
So what do we do? How do we respond when church leaders use “biblical” as a bludgeon?
We must educate ourselves. This takes time and commitment, but it’s essential. Biblical interpretation requires more than a quick search in the Blue Letter Bible. If you don’t take the initiative to learn for yourself, a pastor can copy and paste a few excerpts of Hebrew and Greek into their training handout for a “biblical” stamp of approval.
Pay close attention to the literary genre and historical context of the passages that are used in sermons. Many pastors misinterpret and misapply scripture in their sermons — some innocently and some not so innocently.
In one particularly egregious example, Rick Sinclair uses 2nd Samuel 23 to support his model of biblical manhood. This sermon was preached on June 19, 2022.
With this sermon, Rick demonstrates how not to engage in biblical interpretation. The sermon ignores the historical and cultural context of the passage to support a very specific model of “biblical manhood.” This is known as eisegesis: interpreting a text by reading your own ideas into it.
“I want to look at a biblical passage that enlarges this idea of the call of God upon men to biblical manhood. It's one of the most inspiring passages I know of in the scriptures. Some of you who've been in the ministry here for many years, you've perhaps heard me share out of this passage. It really is one of my favorites. It's a passage in the Old Testament that talks about David's mighty men, those who were gathered around him who had places of prominence in the ministry of David. If you'll turn to 2nd Samuel chapter 23. Because it flushes out just some of the qualities of biblical manhood that I want the Holy Spirit to bring me into. And I hope when we're done, every one of you men will say: I want in on this. I need God for this.”
Let’s examine the historical context and literary genre of 2nd Samuel. 2nd Samuel chronicles the life of David and was likely written during the reign of David’s son, Solomon. Many scholars believe that large portions of 2nd Samuel and 1 Kings are devoted to a succession narrative that legitimizes David’s reign and therefore Solomon’s succession.
The scripture here is seeking to describe a reality which is an argument in favor of the Davidic line. However, a mere description does not constitute approval. That is, just because a historical narrative appears in the bible does not mean that we should seek to emulate it, whether characters, attitudes, or events. Using 2nd Samuel 23 as an example of biblical manhood is a complete misunderstanding of the text. Rick continues:
“In order to kill the enemy, you have to identify the enemy. You have to know who the enemy is. You have to know right from wrong. You have to know good from evil. You have to know truth from error. You have to know wisdom from above versus the wisdom that's earthly, sensual, devilish. How do we learn that? I believe he was a man of the word. I want to challenge you brothers. We've got to be men of the word. We need the word of God in our lives.”
David’s mighty men were not “men of the word.” They were soldiers. They may have been aware of the Pentateuch, but they weren’t priests or scribes. They weren’t reading their bibles around the campfire while they were hiding in the wilderness from David’s enemies. Imposing 21st century customs on Ancient Near Eastern warriors disregards the historical context of this passage and ignores the theological thrust of the whole chapter and book.
Rick is so invested in interpreting this passage as a model for biblical manhood that he uses Abishai — a warrior who happened to be David’s nephew — to defend the rampant nepotism at CFC. Nepotism is “the practice of appointing and promoting family and relatives. In an organization, it means that family members are favored over others, even though they may not be as qualified or skilled.”
“I've heard foolish talk for years about nepotism. Foolish talk. I want to say, I'm thrilled when I see generations being raised up to serve Christ. I'm thrilled at it. And I want to see more of it. Now, having said that, do we put people in positions of leadership and authority? Because they're related? No, we don't. But we don't deny them that either.
You know what I say to my sons, what I say to my sons-in-law. Great. Prove it. You're a man of God. Kill some Philistines. Show your stuff. You're not getting a title just because you’re related to me.”
2nd Samuel 23 isn’t about giving family members a chance to prove themselves. This is a flagrant misuse of scripture to label nepotism as “biblical manhood.” Rick then praises his family members as examples of biblical manhood in this unsettling section:
“You got to understand the devil is in that kind of talk. That is not God. Now, a few years ago, somebody said to me, well and I got this problem with all this nepotism at CFC. I said, “What nepotism?” He said, ”Well, you know, your family.”
So it's like we're in the middle, by the way, at that time of like a really big deal at CFC Canton. And I said to them, “Can you think of anybody better than Jamie Sinclair? To be leading us through this?” He said, “Oh guess not.” I said, “He's killing Philistines! Can you think of anybody better than Daniel Paladin to be raising up that church in Potsdam to pioneer the next season of ministry?” They said, “No, I guess not.” I said, “He's killing Philistines!”
Now, if people related to us aren't getting the job done, that's a problem. But this man Abishai, he's not listed among the mighty men because he's David's nephew. He kills 300 Philistines. That's really, really significant. Saints, I want to say something: you got to put that lie away. I mean, you've got to absolutely put that lie away.”
Not only is it deeply problematic to label actions like suing the Town of Canton as “killing Philistines,” but the progression of this sermon demonstrates that Rick’s response to being challenged is to engage in eisegesis.
Rick pulls this passage about David’s mighty men out of context, asserts that the Philistine-killing soldiers are a model for biblical manhood, and then sidetracks the sermon to defend his family against charges of nepotism. According to this sermon, it’s not nepotism if you’re a Biblical Man™.
If we are to avoid falling into the trap of heresy and abuse, we must educate ourselves with faithful interpretations of scripture. Be watchful for these problematic uses of “biblical.” If you see a pastor asserting that their interpretation of a particular passage is the only valid reading, pause to consider why that might be. Exercise curiosity about why churches might call themselves “Biblical Baptist” or “Christian Biblical Church of God.” And most importantly, beware of false teachers who label their sin as “biblical.”
