“Biblical worldview” is a meaningless phrase

New House Speaker Mike Johnson has declared that if you want to know what he thinks ““go pick up a Bible off your shelf and read it. That’s my worldview.” Actually, reading it won’t tell us anything about what Johnson thinks because Biblical worldviews are all over the map.

Take the Civil War. As religious historian Mark Noll has written, it was a theological crisis for white Protestants because their “Biblical worldview” included that the truth of the Bible was so plain, it didn’t need interpretation, didn’t need the Catholic Church to dictate how to read it — any Christian could do that for themselves. Only half of white America interpreted it as clearly supporting slavery; half saw it as a document embracing abolition. Fast-forward a century and lots of white Christians saw the Bible clearly supported segregation and opposed interracial marriage; other Christians disagreed (black Christians didn’t have these deep divisions. Go figure).

Here’s a specific example: for the authorities of Major League Baseball in 1947, the moral stance was keeping the major leagues whites only. For a more recent one, right-winger Anna Perez claims discrimination is Biblically justified.

To paraphrase Fred Clark, anyone who claims a Biblical worldview in relation with their politics should explain just what that worldview involves. As JFK once said, it’s perfectly legitimate to ask a believer of any faith (or an atheist for that matter) how their beliefs will influence their politics; opposing Johnson for being Christian (or atheist, Jewish, Hindu, etc.) is bigoted but opposing him because he opposes no-fault divorce is legit (he’s not alone in this), even if it does stem from his “Biblical worldview.” As a Louisiana state representative, Johnson supported a bill that could have allowed pastors to refuse to marry interracial couples; do his lies about the bill indicate he’s anti-interracial marriage?

While I’ve seen several articles drilling into the details of Johnson’s worldview, I’ve also seen a fair amount of handwaving it aside: how can Dems paint him as extreme when he’s so quiet-spoken? But being quiet-spoken isn’t inconsistent with being a bigot, and having  bad views isn’t excusable because they’re motivated by religion.

And as much as many conservative Christians claim their positions are the will of god, they are, at best, an interpretation of the Bible. Even if we assume the Bible itself is infallible (I certainly don’t think it is), none of us can claim our interpretation is infallible: only God can be without error (speaking from a Christian perspective, obviously). What many right-wingers think is God’s divine plan for men and women, as Kristen Kobes Du Mez says, is just recycled secular misogyny.

Similarly the assumption that election results we like are God’s will is, shall we see, possibly heavily biased. And as Johnson wants to slash IRS funding (as noted at the link this will not save the government money) he apparently doesn’t include “render unto Caesar” in his biblical worldview.

The “worldview” interview was with Sean Hannity, who, of course, wanted to softball the new conservative star. Other reporters shouldn’t go easy. What does his Biblical worldview entail? If Johnson thinks the US is a Christian nation, what does that mean for non-Christians? Which churches does he consider Christian? Given his long history of wanting to re-criminalize gay sex (see the first link up top) I’m guessing churches that are pro-gay do not, but he’ll probably be fine with those that don’t crack down on adultery, even if it is in the Ten Commandments.

Johnson claims it’s impossible for Christians to be hateful because the Bible says to love one another. Therefore the idea he’s going to impose his religion on anyone is just outrageous! The history of right-wing Christianity in this country says he’s lying, ditto Tony Perkins, who supports Johnson (and supported Trump, then whined when he was criticized for it).

Johnson sounds like the kind of guy who inspired the Founders to create this country as emphatically not a Christian nation. There’s never been a “Christian nation” that didn’t advocate for a specific kind of Christianity: Catholic, Protestant, Anglican, whatever. That never worked out well for the other branches of the faith; the Puritans, remember, hung Quakers for simply not being Puritans. Do not think it can’t happen again.