Another problem created by theological filtration systems (TFS) is the resultant deformation of the metanarrative of scripture.
This goes a step further than simply separating out the portions of scripture that do not fit the doctrinal framework of a TFS. This type of filter acts more like a lens—a lens through which the entirety of scripture is viewed and understood… or misunderstood.
For instance, if the biblical metanarrative is, based off an emphasis on certain passages of scripture, believed to be justice for the oppressed, then that belief becomes the filter, or lens, that colors all other passages. It elevates justice for the oppressed as the primary theological message of the Bible.
A lens is difficult to address, even more so than a filter, because there is, like any TFS, a level of validity to it. The person/group that has adopted or created one has trouble seeing anything else. While filters divide the parts, lenses determine the whole. When a filter is used, it can be addressed by reemphasizing the parts that have been sifted out and discarded.
What I have found is that most people who adhere to a theological system that uses filters are unaware of said use. Thus, when confronted with the pieces that have been filtered out, they have no frame of reference for them, as they did not even know that they either existed or were pertinent to the theological conversation. A rather perplexing phenomenon when you consider that we’re dealing with, quote on quote, “biblical” theology.
A lens, however, is, as I said, more difficult tackle. Lenses are highly eisegetical. They apply their “coloring” onto every aspect of the biblical whole. Unless there is a willingness to remove the lens, the wearer will be severely limited in what they are able to see, as they are unwilling to see anything else.
Take the lens of Liberation Theology, a rather modern invention, for instance. To summarize: Liberation Theology asserts, among other fallacies, that all references to spiritual or supernatural forces, particularly those evil in nature, are metaphors for human institutions. As such, the agenda of the Christian and mission of the Church is not to free mankind from spiritual bondage but to resist institutional evil and liberate people from its captivity.
In other words, political activism. A brief look into its short history will make this clear.
When applied to the whole, this lens bends light to such a degree that nothing is seen clearly. Everything spiritual is chalked up to metaphor. Truth and morality are defined by modern societal standards. And the only evil forces in the world are white male colonialists, or those who look like them, and capitalism.
Apart from having no roots in scripture, this lens is a product of the post-enlightenment/scientific era and its subsequent worldview. It is ironic that a theological system that seeks to “desupernaturalize” the evil spiritual forces described throughout the scriptures still calls itself “Christianity”. If the “powers” are simply human institutions, then “the Power” must be as well. What’s more, to demythologize the majority of the biblical narrative but not the part where God becomes a man is nonsensical, at best.
Frankly, it is incoherent to selectively apply a metaphorical interpretation ad hoc. To do so to suit a preference is intellectually dishonest, especially when the premise upon which the system is built requires it.
The casuistry that is Liberation Theology demonstrates the pernicious affects that a TFS-created lens can have upon how the whole of scripture—the metanarrative—is viewed. Again, lenses color all that is seen. Yet if that lens is never removed or worn for too long, the true colors—the realities—of what is viewed through them are never known or altogether forgotten.
A lens, rather than enhancing the ocular experience, inhibits it. But because the lens colors the whole, not just a part, it affects the view through which the world of things—in this case, biblical theology—is perceived. The color spectrum many lenses make available is limited. As such, any description given regarding what constitutes biblical theology outside of that limited range does not compute. Any dissenting description is looked on with disdain, disinterest, and/or derision.
The world, as it is seen through lens “x”, is the real world. Biblical theology, as it is seen through lens “x”, is real biblical theology.
Now that is not to say that the biblical writers didn’t themselves have lenses. They most certainly did. However, they were not the lenses our post-Constantinian Protestantism have created. Nor were they the lenses of post-Enlightenment political Progressivism either.
To understand the worldview, the lens, of the biblical writers, our modern theological filtration systems have to be discarded. If we actually want to comprehend the metanarrative of scripture, to recognize it’s theological messaging, the colored lens through which we have been looking for so long need to be removed.
Otherwise, all that will ever be seen of the technicolor world that is biblical theology is the monotony of a single hue.