Beatnik Christianity Refrains from Using the Word “Biblical” As A Divine Rubber Stamp

The comedian, Mike Birbiglia, has a hilarious bit about how everyone tries to get you to dance at clubs. With an intonation reflecting a complete lack of self-confidence he says, “They come up to you and say ‘You gotta dance! you gotta dance!’ And then I dance, and they’re like, ‘Not like that!'” That’s precisely how I feel about the Bible. I grew up in churches that revered Scripture, so I’ve spent my adult life earnestly trying to honor and worship God by carefully studying Scripture. Yet whenever I offer an insight or question from all that studying they say, “Not like that!”1

Christian culture often uses the adjective “biblical” as the all-important rubber stamp of divine sanction. It means an idea or practice bears the full weight of God’s acceptance and blessing. If an idea or practice is biblical, then God 100% supports it. If an idea or practice is unbiblical, then God 100% does not support it. OK, but what about, say, monosodium glutamate or democracy? Neither is mentioned within the Bible, so wouldn’t this mean there needs to be a category for what exists between approved and rejected, biblical and unbiblical? Suddenly things get more complicated.

For a long time there, I retained the biblical vs. unbiblical framework only with an additional term of “non-biblical” for things simply not addressed. It was a ginormous category covering the majority of day-to-day existence. Eventually I came to accept that whole paradigm was fatally flawed, though. Come to find out, that well-intentioned schema was inhibiting me from seeing the world through the lens of the incarnate Word. That epiphany was transformational. It was like moving from 8-bit, overhead perspective Zelda to the 3-D Zelda of the Nintendo Switch.

The problem with “biblical” is three-fold. First, there’s an inherent confusion about what it even means. Does it mean a thing is merely acknowledged within the Bible or does it mean the thing is sanctioned by the Bible? Second, even if it’s approved somewhere, “biblical” has little correlation with The Way of Jesus. “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” is Hebrew law, but Jesus refuted it and told us to turn the other cheek.2 Third, too often “biblical” is used to to bludgeon people. It’s about winning rather than pursuing truth, beauty, goodness, love, wisdom, and the like.

The original beatniks didn’t look to any one collection of sacred texts for approval. They liked Jesus and loved the beatitudes, but were suspicious of religious overlords who tried sanctioning only “biblical” practices as socially acceptable. As a beatnik Christian, I maintain a high view of Scripture and believe all Christian communities should be saturated with the spiritual wisdom of Scripture, but I rarely use the adjective anymore. It’s confusing, unhelpful, and hegemonic. Instead I propose we use “Christ-like” and ask, “Does it align with The Way of Jesus?”