Stop Principlizing Scripture!
Principlizing Scripture is a poor reading of the text. It is poor handling of the text as well. Oftentimes, Christians like extracting principles from narrative passages in Scripture, and that can be deeply unbiblical. Let me explain:
What is “Principlizing”?
You have probably heard of “biblical principles”. Principlizing is the attempt to find a principle or “truth” in the text that does not clearly evoke that “principle”. In other words, principlizing is trying to find inexplicit truth. Hear me out, whenever you see the word “inexplicit”, you should raise your mental red flags. Some inexplicit truths are...true. But, inexplicit can also be a “method” for one to say whatever they want. In many cases, principlizing is just a method of rationalization or justification of one’s personal beliefs. It is NOT an attempt to exegete the text or discover what the text is actually saying.
In other words, people claim to make a passage a “principle” when they are simply twisting Scripture to say what they want—even when what they are saying could be true. “Principlizing” = twisting.
Let me give you a few examples.
Example 1: Joseph, Mary, and baby Jesus
Hey, its Christmas so let’s use a Christmas example. Luke 2:1-20 is about the birth of Jesus in a manger in Bethlehem (2:7). The first people who celebrated the birth of the savior of the world were the shepherds (2:8-20). This is the narrative.
Some people will principlize this story to the following, “(this story reminds us) to care for the poor. Baby Jesus was born in the manger because the people didn’t care for the poor and needy.” In other words, Luke 2:1-20 = “care for the poor”.
Now, is the notion “care for the poor” biblical? Yes! Scripture instructs us to care for the poor (cf. Prov 19:17; Jas 2:5; 2:14-17 etc.). Here’s the problem, is the nativity story chiefly (or “indicatively”) of Christ about caring for the poor? NO! When we distill the narrative into a proposition, what is lost? A WHOLE LOT—the whole story! What is the point of Christ’s birth (this will blow you away): the narrative of Christ’s birth. Do you see the problem of principlizing? We are twisting the text to make it to mean something that is not what the text is attempting to say—even if the “proposition” is true/biblical.
Example 2: The Exodus Story
This one really gets me angry. In Sunukjian’s eyes, the goal of the Exodus story, the part where God makes Israel cross the Red Sea, is this:
“The reason God sometimes does not take us on a direct route to his good plans for us is because he knows there is some obstacle on that route that would keep us from reaching the goal.” (Invitation to biblical preaching, 29)
Wow. What’s the problem? There are so many. Let’s start with this, why can’t the story simply be about God’s display of power? God guided and protected the Israelites through the cloud and fire and parted the Red Sea to show His power and majesty and dominion! If this was the point, I’m good.
Now, let’s really dive into it. Sunukjian calls this notion as “truth”. But in the statement, he says, “the reason God sometimes does not take us on a direct route...” Why does he say “sometimes”? Because he knows he can’t merely say “the reason God does not...” as that would be untrue! We can’t control God and say “God always redirects us from the direct route.” By the way, God led the Israelites directly through Jericho. God could’ve diverted the Israelites away from Jericho but He made them take the “direct route”.
So, Sunukjian had to add “sometimes”. But this is the problem. “Sometimes” makes a statement conditional. So the statement isn’t a simple truth claim, but a conditional one. Conditional truth = probable truth. But the story IS NOT ABOUT PROBABLE TRUTH. This is a narrative that happened. There is not a probable truth that is asserted in the narrative. Sunukjian took a narrative fact and made it a probability, branding that as “truth”. That’s just not the point of the narrative (and he calls it “true and exact meaning”…smh).
For the record, probable truths aren’t very helpful in many scenarios. For example, the sun may not rise tomorrow. The world may end tomorrow. The chair you sit on could break. These are all probable truths and that is why we have faith.
Example 3: House Churches (as the only form of church)
House churches (or simple church model) is a gathering of believers inside someone’s home. Certainly, it doesn’t have to be in a home. The general concept is a small group of committed and tight-knitted believers (e.g. youth group, small/cell group, men’s/women’s group, bible study).
The predominant form of gathering in Acts was house churches. God certainly used house churches to foster brotherly love and bring forth numerical growth. House churches, as in, being connected to a small group of believers, is indispensable. However, some people have taken it too far and have claimed that house churches are the only form of church. They principlize “breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts,” (Acts 2:46) as “the only way of church is gathering in a home.” Hello? The passage clearly evokes the early church gathering at the temple—that’s a celebration model (which is also typological and thus valuable).
Reversing the Method
People who principlize Scripture loosely follow this method:
Approach Scripture (usually narrative)
Extract principle from text (twisting the text)
Throw out all the rest (Text = principle only)
Does this method actually honor God’s word? I don’t think so. There’s a better way as so much richness is lost. What if the way to approach Scripture is simply as follows?
Appreciate Scripture carefully and literarily (according to the authorial intent, which often begins with genre)
Don’t make the text about application (“extracting a biblical truth”)
If the passage clearly evokes a truth/proposition/application/principle/prescription, that’s that (apply it).
For example, when Paul says, “Do not get drunk on wine,” (Ephesians 5:18) that’s that—don’t get drunk. If you want to add an illustration, you may use examples of drunk people in narratives.
Conclusion:
A response is, “What if the text could mean or reflect a principle?” For example, the Nativity story could reflect the principle to “care for the poor”. Here’s the issue. Any text could mean a lot of things. The possibility of a text reflecting a principle may be helpful to an individual (e.g. “in my devotional time”). God may remind someone reading the Nativity story in one’s devotional time to care for the poor. That is a potential “spiritual sense” application. But the question remains, “does the text, in its historical-grammatical construction, have an intended assertion?” The answer must be yes, and in the nativity story, its not indicative of “caring for the poor.”
Another response is, “Doesn’t Scripture write, ‘All Scripture is…profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness?” (2 Tim 3:16) Yes. But again, this passage does not instruct us to principlize.
There is so much more I could say on this subject but I shall refrain. (I have written academically on this). My goal is to raise awareness and further conversations (Got questions/comments? Reach out!). At the end of the day, may all that we do glorify God and honor His word to the best of our ability.
