Review: Christian Smith - The Bible Made Impossible, Parts 6 and 7

I have selected Dr. Roger Olson's reviews to help in the assimilation of Christian Smith's book since he interacts with a multitude of Christians either in favor of, or in opposition to, the subject matter. As prelude, I would encourage a reading of the introductory post earlier submitted for this project - http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2011/10/read-christian-smith-bible-made.html.

- RE Slater 

**********

Part 6 - Third installment of review

Christian Smith’s The Bible Made Impossible

by Roger Olson

Posted on September 30, 2011

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2011/09/third-installment-of-review-of-christian-smiths-the-bible-made-impossible/

Christian Smith, The Bible Made Impossible, Chapters 5 & 6

Now I turn to Chapters 5 and 6–both great chapters with which I mostly agree. I think Chapter 5 especially is extremely helpful and all evangelicals should consider Smith’s (not entirely original) proposal. It won’t fix the problem of PIP, but it will go a long way toward resolving numerous difficulties we run into when we try to treat the Bible as a flat terrain without highs and lows (not of inspiration but of authority for belief and life).

Chapter 5 is entitled “The Christocentric Hermeneutical Key.”

With this chapter Smith turns to proposed partial solutions to the problem of pervasive interpretive pluralism (PIP). However, I think his proposal in this chapter is valuable independently of the PIP problem.

Here’s how Smith sets up the chapter’s argument: “what is needed to improve on biblicism is some kind of stronger hermeneutical guide that can govern the proper interpretation of the multivocal, polysemous, multivalent texts of scripture toward the shared reading of a more coherent, authoritative biblical message. Such a stronger hermeneutical guide would also, of course, have to be consistent with, if not directly derived from, Christian scripture and tradition.” (95)

His proposal is this: “The purpose, center and interpretive key to scripture is Jesus Christ. … Truly believing that Jesus Christ is the real purpose, center, and interpretive key to scripture causes one to read the Bible in a way that is very different than believing the Bible to be an instruction manual containing universally applicable divine oracles concerning every possible subject it seems to address.” (97-98)

To that I can only say Amen! I have been promoting a Christocentric hermeneutic to my students for many years. Smith is not being original here and doesn’t claim to be. Luther practiced such an approach with his litmus test for biblical interpretation. For him, that is especially God’s Word to us that promotes Christ (“was Christum treibt”).

Smith makes clear that he is not advocating a kind of allegorical or typological approach to Scripture that “sees” Christ in every verse of the Old Testament (for example–the tabernacle in the wilderness and every part of it a type of Christ). Rather, his approach is this: “If believers want to rightly understand scripture, every narrative, every prayer, every proverb, every law, every Epistle needs…to be read and understood always and only in the light of Jesus Christ and God reconciling the world to himself through him.” (99) Again, to that I say Amen!

Smith rightly appeals to great theologians such as Bonhoeffer, Barth, G. C. Berkouwer, Geoffrey Bromiley, Donald Bloesch, and to contemporary theologians (some evangelical) such as John Webster and Kevin Vanhoozer.

One problem I have with Smith’s examples of Christocentric hermeneutics is his appeal to the 2000 Baptist Faith & Message of the Southern Baptist Convention. He says it includes the phrase “all Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation.” (108) However, he fails to note that the 2000 BF&M dropped the following sentence from the 1963 BF&M (which is still the consensus statement of the Baptist General Convention of Texas): “The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ.” Dropping that sentence seriously weakened the phrase the 2000 BF&M kept. It is one thing to say Christ is the “focus” of divine revelation and something else entirely to say he is the “criterion” for interpretation of Scripture. The 1963 criterion phrase was dropped purposely, in my opinion, in order to strengthen the kind of biblicism Smith decries as impossible. So, if Jesus Christ is not the criterion by which the Bible is interpreted, what will be that criterion? No doubt the framers of the revisionist 2000 BF&M would say it doesn’t need one because it is wholly perspicuous. But, of course, that’s simply naive. I suggest that for them, the unacknowledged criterion is themselves–i.e., their vision of Baptist tradition. I agree with Smith about this and it applies, in my opinion, to the moves made by the SBC in its revision of the BF&M and to its leaders approach to the Bible: “The reality is that it is not possible to take fully seriously a Christocentric hermeneutic of scripture and to hold to biblicism. One or the other must give. In most cases to date, the biblicist tendencies overwhelm Christocentric gestures and intuitions. Nobody ends up explicitly denying that Christ is the purpose, center, meaning, and key to understanding scripture. But in actual practice Christ gets sidelined by the interest in defending every proposition and account as inerrant, universally applicable, contemporarily applicable, and so on, in ways that try to make the faith ‘relevant’ for everyday concerns.” (109)

What Smith doesn’t say (or say enough about) is that in these cases what takes the place of Christ as the criterion of biblical interpretation is not nothing but some tradition–whether the “ancient Christian consensus” as in paleo-orthodoxy or the “received evangelical tradition” as in conservative evangelicalism/neo-fundamentalism or the magisterium of the Catholic church as in Roman Catholicism. My question to Smith would be: Can you really practice what you preach in this chapter as a Roman Catholic?

I agree with Smith (at least the Smith of this chapter!) that a “canon within the canon” is inevitable and it ought to be Jesus Christ (was Christum treibt). If it isn’t him, it will be something or someone else. And I probably agree with Smith now (after the book was written when he joined the RCC) that there is always and must be a “canon outside the canon”–some tradition that guides us in interpretation. Where I disagree (probably) is that this canon outside the canon must be binding on our interpretation of Scripture. I say it (for me The Great Tradition of Christian teaching heralded by the church fathers and restored by the Reformers) always gets a vote (in matters of doctrinal controversy) but never a veto. Jesus, however, gets a veto! That is to say that if a doctrine conflicts with the character of God revealed in Jesus Christ, however many verses can be piled up to support it, it cannot be true.

Perhaps Smith’s most radical claim in this chapter (and perhaps in the book) is this: “The Bible is of course crucial for the Christian church and life. But it does not trump Jesus Christ as the true and final Word of God. The Bible is a secondary, subsidiary, functional, written word of God, the primary purpose of which is to mediate, to point us to, to give true testimony about the living Jesus Christ. … Biblicism borders on idolatry when it fails to maintain this perspective.” (117-118)

Again, I respond with a hearty Amen!

Smith goes on to deal with objections to Christocentric hermeneutics and he handles them very well.

Let me use Smith’s chapter and the approach it takes to explain WHY I AM NOT A CALVINIST AND CANNOT BE ONE. I am constantly besieged by critics who claim my theology–Arminianism–is exegetically weak. What I think they are saying is that they can pile up more verses for their theology than I can for mine. EVEN IF THAT WERE TRUE (which I’m not about to concede), it wouldn’t settle the issue between us. The Bible is not a textbook of truth in the way they handle it. It is inspired testimony to Jesus Christ who reveals God’s character perfectly. I see them trying to look behind Jesus Christ to some God whose character is different from Jesus’. And then they impose that mostly Old Testament view of God onto Jesus Christ and the New Testament. My first and utter loyalty is to Jesus Christ. I agree with Zinzendorf who said “If it weren’t for Jesus I wouldn’t believe in God” only I would alter it to “If it weren’t for Jesus I wouldn’t love or worship God.” Thank God for Jesus! When I look at most Calvinist attempts to prove their theology (and here I mean high, TULIP, double predestination Calvinism) what I see is an interpretation of Scripture that leaves Jesus behind; God’s character is derived from a chain of biblical passages interpreted in such a way that they are not only NOT consistent with the character of God revealed in Jesus, they positively CONFLICT with the character of God revealed in Jesus. I know this sounds shocking to biblicist ears (as Smith defines biblicism), but I agree with Wesley who said of the Calvinist interpretation of Romans 9 “Whatever it means, it cannot mean that!” Why not? Because of Jesus Christ.

Now don’t jump on me for sentimentalizing God and Jesus. Sure, God revealed in Jesus is intolerant of evil and judges it. But he is a God who loves his human creatures, created in his own image and likeness, and wants them all to be saved and has done everything in his power to save them. If they are not saved it is because they prefer to remain in the “far country” than to return home to the waiting father with his open arms.

Next time…Chapter 6 “Accepting Complexity and Ambiguity”

Part 7 - Another installment of my review of Smith’s The Bible Made Impossible

by Roger Olson

Posted on October 3, 2011

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2011/10/another-installment-of-my-review-of-smiths-the-bible-made-impossible/

Chapter 6: “Accepting Complexity and Ambiguity”

There is no chapter in Smith’s book with which I agree more than this one. While I don’t think his prescriptions here will go very far toward reducing pervasive interpretive pluralism (PIP), they are of paramount importance for evangelical honesty (toward the Bible) and generosity (toward each other and other Christians).

I cannot recommend this chapter highly enough; I wish every evangelical (and that’s a pretty broad concept for me!) could read this chapter if nothing else. Of course, as with other chapters, there’s nothing that new here. The novelty of Smith’s book and this chapter lies not in any innovation of concepts but in the way old concepts are packaged and presented.

A lot of the material in this chapter I learned in seminary. I was fortunate enough to attend a very sane, moderate, even sometimes progressive evangelical Baptist seminary (North American Baptist Seminary in Sioux Falls, South Dakota—now called Sioux Falls Seminary). My professors were full of good, strong, common sense about the Bible and theology as well as steeped in the best historical and contemporary scholarship. Sometimes I’m tempted to say that everything I ever really needed to know I learned in seminary. It liberated me from fundamentalism, obscurantism and anti-intellectualism and introduced me to this (Smith’s) kind of broad, generous, common-sensical evangelical Christianity.

I’ll have to admit up front that I MIGHT be biased in favor of this chapter because I’m favorably named in it; Smith makes use of my distinction between “dogmas,” “doctrines,” and “opinions”—something I first published in the little book Who Needs Theology (IVP). However, I don’t really think that’s the case. Even were I not mentioned in the chapter I would find almost total agreement with it.

The first part of the Chapter 6 is “Embracing the Bible for what it obviously is.”

Smith says “One of the strangest things about the biblicist mentality is its evident refusal to take the Bible at face value.” (127) He accuses evangelical biblicists of creating a “theory about the Bible [that] drives them to make it something that it evidently is not.” (127) Smith urges evangelicals to be satisfied and come to terms with the actual phenomena of Scripture rather than imposing on it a theory of inspiration, authority and inerrancy foreign to it as an ancient text containing many different literary genres. In the second section of the chapter, entitled “Living with scriptural ambiguities,” Smith unfolds what he means. There he says “There is no reason whatsoever not to openly acknowledge the sometimes confusing, ambiguous, and seemingly incomplete nature of scripture.” (131) Then he explains “All of scripture is not clear, nor does it need to be. But the real matter of scripture is clear, ‘the deepest secret of all,’ that God in Christ has come to earth, lived, taught, healed, died, and risen to new life, so that we too can rise to life in him.” (132)

In contrast, Smith argues, too many evangelicals (not all) have imposed on Scripture an expectation and then a demand that it be perfect in every way by modern standards suitable to (for example) university textbooks. The Bible simply isn’t that. It is not a set of inerrant propositions waiting to be harmonized and systematized into something like a philosophy. Rather, it contains ambiguities, uncertainties, apparent contradictions, mysteries, etc. At the end of this section of the chapter Smith quotes the great Dutch Reformed theologian G. C. Berkouwer (who I use in Against Calvinism against the radical Reformed theology of the “new Calvinism” in America) approvingly: “the confession of perspicuity is not a statement in general concerning the human language of Scripture, but a confession concerning the perspicuity of the gospel in Scripture.” (133) To that I say amen!

In the next section of the chapter (“Dropping the compulsion to harmonize”) Smith gives a case study in how biblicism’s theory of Scripture simply does not fit the phenomena of Scripture. His case study is drawn from Harold Lindsell’s infamous (that’s my value judgment but not mine alone!) 1976 book The Battle for the Bible. There Lindsell, a militant inerrantist who wanted moderate to progressive evangelicals fired from their teaching positions at evangelical colleges, universities and seminaries, argued that if we believe the Bible to be inspired, authoritative and inerrant (three adjectives he linked inseparably together) we must believe that Peter denied Christ six times before the cock crowed on two separate occasions. This was Lindsell’s attempt to harmonize the four gospels’ accounts of Peter’s denial. This is just a case study in making the Bible impossible.

Smith concludes that “the Bible, understood as what it actually is, still speaks to us with a divine authority, which we need not question but which rather powerfully calls us and our lives into question.” (134) Well said! It’s important to note that Smith does NOT say that all harmonizing attempts are bad. “In some cases, to be sure, harmonizations of biblical accounts may actually be right.” (134) It’s just that harmonizing is usually not necessary. (134)

I agree with Smith’s overall point in this section, but I would push a little further than he does with respect to the value of cautious harmonization of biblical teachings and stories. They can’t all be harmonized and we shouldn’t even try—especially when we’re talking about non-essentials of the faith. But I have a friend who teaches New Testament at a Christian college who occasionally picks on me for going overboard with harmonization. He even goes so far as to argue that the Bible teaches BOTH absolute, unconditional predestination AND free will (as power of contrary choice) and the necessity of free cooperation with grace. That is, he believes the Bible teaches BOTH monergism and synergism. And he disdains every effort by theologians to systematize these into a coherent soteriology. For him, just to give one example, Philippians 2:12-13 is a contradiction and we simply have to embrace it and not try to harmonize these two verses. I disagree because I see no problem; it takes no “forced harmonization” to harmonize them into a coherent soteriology of prevenient grace and free human cooperation with grace. I just don’t see the problem there whereas he thinks I am forcing harmony where none exists.

Also, New Testament scholar friend thinks I’m simply crazy to think there is real consistency and harmony between the various accounts of the giving of the Holy Spirit in the gospels and Acts. One gospel has Jesus breathing on his disciples BEFORE his ascension and giving them the Holy Spirit. Acts has the Holy Spirit descending on them on the Day of Pentecost. My friend insists these are disparate accounts of the same event. I disagree. To me that’s not much different from Pannenberg’s (with whom I studied and I heard him say this) claim that the story of Jesus’ transfiguration is a “misplaced resurrection story.” I haven’t discussed this one with my friend, so I don’t know what he would say. We kind of agreed to disagree and leave the matter alone (at least for a while).

I think it’s fairly obvious (though I wouldn’t call someone a heretic who disagrees) that Jesus gave his disciples the Holy Spirit to indwell them and be with them before Pentecost but on the Day of Pentecost the Holy Spirit filled them (“enduement with power” as Pentecostals call it). This fits with some of the stories of Spirit infilling (e.g., of people already believers) in later parts of Acts. I don’t see any forced harmonization there. But I do think Lindsell’s explanation of Peter’s denial of Jesus represents forced and completely unnecessary harmonization. I’m not sure what Smith would think of my rather modest and moderate approach to harmonizing Scripture. He very well might not like it. But I think we should harmonize when we can (e.g., the Arminian take on Philippians 2:12-13) and leave diversity within Scripture alone when we can’t harmonize without distortion.

The next section of the chapter is entitled (subheaded) “Distinguishing dogma, doctrine, and opinion.” Of course, I agree whole heartedly with Smith in this section! J Especially when he criticizes those biblicists who set up scripture readers “to assume that once they have decided what the Bible appears to teach, they will then have come into possession of absolutely definite, divinely authorized, universally valid, indubitable truth. And that truth will be equally valid and certain for every subject about which scripture appears to speak, whether it be the divinity of Jesus or how to engage in ‘biblical dating’.” (137) Smith rightly calls on evangelicals (and all Christians) to exercise a greater degree of humility about their secondary beliefs, their denominational distinctive (or distinctive of a certain tradition) and put beliefs in their right categories according to the clarity of Scripture about them and the certainty possible with regard to them. He cautions that “The point is not that every particular Christian group and tradition needs to strip itself of all its distinctive.” (138) The point is a changed attitude toward levels of importance of biblical teachings and those who disagree about secondary matters not necessary for salvation or even for authentic Christian living.

In my opinion, this recommendation could go a long way toward overcoming many of the controversies among evangelicals. We (the evangelical community in the U.S.) are being torn apart over secondary doctrines and teachings such as predestination, the inerrancy of the Bible, the possible salvation of the unevangelized, etc., etc. Of course, fundamentalists and neo-fundamentalists are not likely to give up insisting that their views are the only possible ones in light of a valid interpretation of Scripture, but my point (in addition to Smith’s) is that evangelical LEADERS need to speak out openly against this internecine war going on among evangelicals which is almost exclusively being fomented by conservatives.

I well remember when Jay Kessler, then head of Youth for Christ and president of Taylor University came to the college where I taught and decried this growing tendency among evangelicals to shoot at each other (figurately speaking, of course) over relatively minor points of doctrine and practice. Too bad he didn’t write an article and have it published in Christianity Today or something! He was a powerful voice for moderation among evangelicals for many years, but either people weren’t listening or he just didn’t raise his voice loudly enough. But I know he was passionately opposed to this tendency to major in the minors as he saw what I call neo-fundamentalists taking over the evangelical community by creating fear of heresy among the untutored laity and pastors.

The last two sections of this chapter are headed “Not everything must be replicated” and “Living on a need-to-know basis.” Smith’s theses are that not everything practiced or even promoted by biblical writers, even apostles, must be practiced today. In other words, there is cultural conditioning in the Bible. And that “In his wisdom, God has chosen to reveal some of his will, plan and work, but clearly not all of it. To the extent that the Bible tells us about matters of Christian faith and life, it clearly does not tell us everything. It certainly does not tell us everything we often want to know.” (141) “Christians would do well to simply accept and live contentedly with the fact that they are being informed about the big picture on a ‘need to know’ basis. … if God has not made something completely clear in scripture, then it is probably best not to try to speculate it into something too significant. Let the ambiguous remain ambiguous.” (142) Again, amen to that! There’s a place for reverent speculation in theology, but it MUST be labeled that—speculation—and not touted as dogma or even doctrine. And I can be firmly convinced that I am right about some matter I think Scripture “clearly teaches” that is not central to salvation and Christian faith WITHOUT implying that those who disagree are subchristian or even subevangelical.

So let’s be specific about this chapter. What’s a case study in what Smith is opposed to here that violates his recommendations for being realistic about biblical ambiguities and secondary matters of doctrine. Well, I already mentioned The Battle for the Bible. But I would add (this is my own opinion, of course) D. A. Carson’s book The Gagging of God (1996). I saw in it a full frontal assault on fellow evangelicals who, in my opinion, Carson did not really even understand. A case in point is his treatment of Stan Grenz. I won’t go into details here as I have already done that in Reformed and Always Reforming which I wrote largely in response to Carson’s book.

In my opinion, this chapter of Smith’s book is crucial to a better, healthier, more reasonable approach to Scripture and doctrine than the one all too common among especially conservative evangelicals. It won’t fix the problem of PIP, but it could help evangelicals (and others) achieve a more balanced and sane approach to Scripture and doctrine.

Review: Christian Smith - The Bible Made Impossible, Parts 4 and 5

I have selected Dr. Roger Olson's reviews to help in the assimilation of Christian Smith's book since he interacts with a multitude of Christians either in favor of, or in opposition to, the subject matter. As prelude, I would encourage a reading of the introductory post earlier submitted for this project - http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2011/10/read-christian-smith-bible-made.html.

- RE Slater

**********

Part 4 - Addendum to my first review of Smith’s The Bible Made Impossible

by Roger Olson

Posted on September 27, 2011

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2011/09/addendum-to-my-first-review-of-smiths-the-bible-made-impossible/

Christian Smith, The Bible Made Impossible, Chapters 3 & 4

Obviously my posts are not perfectly perspicuous–sometimes even to me (when I go back and read them)!

This is not the second installment of my multi-part review of Smith’s book. Here I just want to clarify some matters raised by some of you.

One of my points is that EVEN IF the Bible were all that biblicism claims (as Smith defines biblicism) (setting aside his tenth assumption or belief of biblicism–that the Bible is a complete handbook of answers to all of life’s questions–which I think is blatantly wrong and not really held by any serious scholar) there would be PIP.

Now, I happen to think the Bible is NOT all that biblicists claim (as Smith defines biblicism). For example, Smith includes inerrancy in biblicism. I only confess Scripture’s inerrancy if I’m allowed to define inerrancy! It’s one of those terms that has very little meaning because of such a wide range of meanings given to it by even conservative evangelicals.

Putting that caveat aside for now, my point in my first installment of my review was that EVEN IF biblicism is a correct view of the Bible, PIP would be unavoidable due to human beings’ lack of perfect perspicacity, objectivity, etc.

Secondly, I tried to make the point that I believe the Bible IS perspicuous with regard to beliefs essential or important to salvation and dealing with how to live a life pleasing to God (at least in terms of generalities) even if it IS NOT perspicuous about secondary matters.

I think my analogy of the Constitution works. Some of you objected because the Constitution can be amended. That’s beside the point. EVEN AS AMENDED the Constitution gives rise to PIP. That we have a Supreme Court to hand down authoritative interpretations based on precedents doesn’t solve anything. There’s still PIP about it. Many people disagree with the Supreme Court decisions about what the Constitution means. And what good would it do to say the Catholic Church’s magisterium is like the Supreme Court–the authoritative body for interpreting the Bible? The only thing that MIGHT accomplish (but doesn’t in today’s RCC) is to enforce conformity to its decisions. It can only enforce conformity within itself. Even there, I would argue, PIP exists. But even if you disagree (which to me just means you’re not aware of all that’s going on in the RCC worldwide) there’s the fact that not all Christians are RCC–unless you think they are. The only way to avoid PIP, it seems to me, is to have a dictatorial leader of one tightly organized church body THAT IS THE ONLY GROUP OF CHRISTIANS with the power to enforce his interpretations on everyone. Some cults think they have that and, admittedly, PIP is minimal or non-existent within them. Who wants that?

Part 5 – Review of

Christian Smith’s The Bible Made Impossible

by Roger Olson

Posted on September 27, 2011

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2011/09/part-2-of-the-review-of-christian-smiths-the-bible-made-impossible/

Now I turn to Chapters 3 and 4 of The Bible Made Impossible.

Chapter 3 is entitled Some Relevant History, Sociology and Psychology, and

Chapter 4 is Subsidiary Problems with Biblicism.

First, let me say that, contrary to the impression some have gotten, I am not at all dismissive of Smith’s overall argument; I happen to think it is worthy of serious consideration. Otherwise I would not be engaging it in such detail. Nor do I disagree with it entirely; I have qualms about some parts of it.

Second, I think there is at least one cause of PIP (pervasive interpretive pluralism) Smith overlooks that will inevitably plague any text and its interpretation: presuppositions people bring to the text that the text itself does not directly address. I’ve written about some pre-biblical philosophical and theological presuppositions previously here. One is nominalism versus realism with regard to universals generally and with regard to God’s nature specifically. Does God have an eternal, immutable character that governs his actions or is God entirely free from any constraints on his power and what he wills? Someone might try to argue that the Bible settles this, but I don’t think it does. Luther certainly read the Bible and took it seriously and thought voluntarism (nominalism applied to the doctrine of God) was the right way to read it. Others read the Bible, take it seriously, and think realism is the right way to read it. The Bible doesn’t settle the matter. To expect ANY text settle all possible ways of reading and interpreting it in advance is unrealistic.

Now, I realize Smith might say one thing wrong with biblicism is its expectation that the Bible can be read and understood without presuppositions or that it settles all such issues so that only one set of presuppositions can reasonably be brought to its interpretation. Perhaps some biblicists think that. But my point is that NO TEXT–and that includes any interpretive tradition or magisterium–can possibly settle all such potential presuppositional issues in advance. There will always be ambiguity in any interpretation precisely because of this matter of perspectives caused by philosophical presuppositions. So no proposed solution to PIP can be comprehensive. PIP is inevitable.

Okay, on to Chapter 3. There Smith discusses philosophical assumptions behind modern evangelical biblicism and what is called Scottish Commonsense Realism in particular. He traces the influence of SCR on the Princeton theologians Charles Hodge and B. B. Warfield and through them on contemporary conservative evangelicals such as Wayne Grudem. He concludes that, since SCR has been discredited and replaced by critical realism, “the philosophical assumptions on which Hodge and Warfield built their theologies of the Bible are seriously problematic.” (59) Since modern and contemporary evangelical biblicism is largely based on the theologies of Hodge and Warfield, then, biblicism is itself problematic.

Next Smith discusses sociological and psychological conjectures as to why PIP is not more troubling to biblicists. He goes through a laundry list of reasons and concludes that “the general psychological structure underlying biblicism is one of a particular need to create order and security in an environment that would be otherwise chaotic and in error.” (64) I think he could replace “biblicism” in that sentence with “fundamentalism” and it would be just as true if not truer (depending on how closely biblicism is tied to fundamentalism).

No doubt some philosophically trained or minded evangelicals will want to critique Smith’s treatment of SCR. No doubt some will object that his reasons for why PIP does not trouble conservative evangelical biblicists more are mere conjectures. But he admits the latter. His argument doesn’t seem to be scientific so much as impressionistic. The point is that he thinks these are reasons and you might too, if you consider them. I’m not a biblicist in Smith’s sense and I’m not as troubled by PIP as he is. But I don’t think it’s for any of the reasons he suggests. Although, one specific reason might apply to me.

Smith’s second reason (p. 61) is because, he says, many evangelicals are simply in denial about the depth of PIP; they claim the differences among evangelicals are minor compared with their areas of agreement. He rejects this reason and says that “Disagreements among biblicists (and other Bible-referring Christians) about what the Bible teaches on most issues, both essentials and secondary matters, are many and profound. If biblicists hope to maintain intellectual honesty and internal consistency, they must acknowledge them and explain them.” (62) I simply don’t agree. I find that evangelicals do agree on the essentials of the faith–matters Christians have historically considered cornerstones of orthodoxy. And when someone comes out and denies, say, the deity of Jesus Christ or the Trinity, evangelicals ostracize them from the evangelical movement. Sure, some may attempt to ostracize others over non-essential matters as well (e.g., inerrancy or premillennialism), but that isn’t true as a general rule. Most evangelicals are ready to accept as fellow Christian believers all who adhere to the few cornerstones of historic Christian orthodoxy.

I think the reason I’m not more troubled by PIP is because I have come to terms with it as inevitable. What I’d like to know is how Smith handles PIP. Oh, yes, he joins the Roman Catholic Church. (No sarcasm intended.) That a respectable move even if I disagree with it. I still consider him a Christian and possibly even an evangelical Christian (thought I think that would be in spite of some traditional beliefs of the RCC rather than because of them). What I think is that he will eventually discover PIP there as well. Who interprets papal pronouncements and conciliar decrees? Obviously they’re open to varying interpretations. Just because that particular church has a mechanism for expelling people who stray too far does not mean PIP doesn’t exist within it. It just means it can enforce conformity when it chooses to. But what if those with power to enforce are wrong in their interpretation of the Bible? Then nothing is really gained except artificial uniformity.

Chapter 4 deals with “subsidiary problems with biblicism.”

by Roger Olson
September 27, 2011

Some of these are: “blatantly ignored teachings” of the Bible (68-69); “arbitrary determinations of cultural relativism” (69-72); “strange passages” (72-74) and “populist and ‘expert’ practices deviate from biblicist theory” (75-78). Let’s take the first one and consider it. Smith argues that biblicists routinely flout clear commands and teachings of Scripture such as “Greet one another with a holy kiss.” (68) One has to wonder if he really thinks serious biblical scholars have never examined these commands and explained why they are not universally applicable. Surely he knows better. But he seems to think biblicism REQUIRES that commands such as this be adhered to to the letter and not qualified–even by serious hermeneutical reasoning.

Smith admits that this argument does not in and of itself prove biblicism impossible. It may be, he suggests, that biblicists simply disobey such commands. But he doesn’t think that all there is to it. He thinks there are commands in Scripture that biblicism, as a theory of the Bible, should take literally and that biblicists, if they really believe in their theory of the Bible, would at least admit they are disobeying. Instead, he says, biblicists simply ignore these commands. They “simply [go] in one ear and out the other.” (68) I think that oversimplifies more sophisticated evangelical biblicism.

I think many of Smith’s criticisms of biblicism strike against folk religion and unsophisticated fundamentalism. But evangelical scholars who adhere to most, if not all, of what Smith calls biblicism early in the book have offered reasons for considering these commands culturally conditioned. But he thinks the reasons offered are “arbitrary.” (69) I just think he gives evangelical biblical scholars very little credit OR he would just say they are not biblicists insofar as they find and offer good reasons for considering these commands culturally conditioned and not universally applicable. Again, I think William Webb, author of Slaves, Women and Homosexuals (IVP Academic, 2001) is a biblicist (even if not exactly fitting Smith’s profile) who offers sound reasons for considering some biblical injunctions culturally conditioned.

Smith admits midway through the chapter that “none of these empirical observations necessarily discredit biblicism. It could be that biblicist theory is correct and that actual, empirical biblicist practices and experiences are often compromised. Life sometimes works this way.” (78) But Smith doesn’t think that’s the explanation. Rather, he says, “biblicism is impossible to practice in actual experience–because of, among other reasons, the multivocality and polysemy of the texts.” (78) Again, I wonder who exactly he means by “biblicists” here. Apparently, they would have to be literalists–what one of my seminary professors called “wooden literalists.” (I never quite figured out what the “wooden” meant unless “inflexible.”) In other words, old fashioned, unreconstructed, unsophisticated fundamentalists–such as I grew up among. Yes, one reason I left them is because I found their theory of the Bible, such as it was, impossible to believe consistently and impossible to practice. But at times Smith SEEMS to want to include ALL conservative evangelicals among his impossible biblicists. He specifically names Wayne Grudem a couple times. While I disagree with Grudem’s view of the Bible, I’m not sure it’s as unsophisticated as Smith makes it out to be. That is, I don’t think even Grudem is as literalistic as Smith suggests biblicism has to be or at least he offers reasons for not greeting fellow Christians with a holy kiss.

Another example Smith gives as a “subsidiary problem with biblicism” is “the genuine need for extrabiblical theological concepts.” (82-84) Here’s his explanation: “Biblicism suggests that all of the pieces of the Christian doctrine and morality puzzle are right there in the Bible as propositions to be pulled out and put together in their logical ordering. … Yet a bit of reflection on orthodox Christian theology makes clear that numerous absolutely crucial doctrinal terms are not themselves found in the Bible but were invented or appropriated by the church during the patristic era.” (82) His examples are the terms Trinity, homoousion and creatio ex nihilo.

Again, I would argue that only the most unsophisticated evangelicals steeped in fundamentalism or folk religion (or both) think the Bible contains every important theological term. I grew up in a very unsophisticated evangelical and even fundamentalist church and home and went to a college steeped in that tradition and I knew from a relatively young age that the Bible did not contain the term “Trinity” but it was something we were to believe anyway. Why? Because even though the Bible does not use the term, the concept it names is found in the Bible. At least all the ingredients for it are there such that it is inevitable as one reflects on them.

Now, Smith seems to think even that kind of thinking is inconsistent with biblicism. Maybe it is–as he defines biblicism. But again, that just raises the question who actually believes in that kind of biblicism? I do agree that many evangelicals, mostly ones I would call fundamentalists or folk religionists, are inconsistent about these matters. In other words, as Smith is pointing out, they say one thing in their doctrine of the Bible but practice something else and claim consistency. That is a problem. But I find that MOST non-fundamentalist evangelicals, even ones I consider conservative, do not actually make the claims for the Bible Smith says they do. Or they qualify them so severely (e.g., inerrancy, harmony, etc.) that the words they use are not really meant in their ordinary meanings. (For example, progressive revelation and accommodation are standard qualifications of harmony.)

Smith concludes Chapter 4 thus: “When we confront biblicism’s many problems, we come to see that it is untenable. Biblicism simply cannot be practiced with intellectual and practical honesty on its own terms. It is in this sense literally impossible.” (89) Again, I agree insofar as biblicism means rigid literalism, claims to absolute perspecuity such that all reasonable people will agree about its meaning exhaustively, technical inerrancy, etc. It’s just that I don’t think most evangelicals who call themselves biblicists adhere to these beliefs about the Bible in unqualified ways.

What I do think is that SOME conservative evangelicals, including some biblical scholars and theologians, pay LIP SERVICE to beliefs about the Bible (to keep constituents off their backs) that they KNOW are not true. I’ve been around in this evangelical movement for all my life and I’ve seen it frequently and perhaps done it myself at times. For example, I know evangelical scholars who teach at very conservative institutions who DO NOT believe in inerrancy IN ANY WAY similar to their constituent pastors and lay people but who pretend to in order to keep their jobs or not rock the boat. Now there’s a very real problem. And there are SOME conservative evangelical theologians and biblical scholars and certainly pastors and denominational leaders who do seem to adhere to biblicism as Smith describes it. It is impossible IF TAKEN THAT STRICTLY. But I think most non-fundamentalist evangelical scholars and many, if not most, non-fundamentalist pastors and administrators gave up that kind of UNQUALIFIED biblicism long ago.

In spite of all my qualms and questions, I think Smith is putting his finger on an important problem that especially conservative evangelicals are reluctant to face and deal with. It’s this: The grassroots of evangelicalism are much, much more conservative and unsophisticated in their biblicism than evangelical scholars and many evangelical scholars have to cater to that when they know better. They are biblicists themselves, in a highly qualified sense, but they know that unqualified biblicism of Smith’s description is impossible to reconcile with the phenomena of the text and impossible to live out consistently. They know that sophisticated hermeneutical moves are necessary to preserve biblicism and that it is necessary to qualify concepts like “inerrancy” almost to death (perhaps to death!). But they don’t tell their constituents out of fear of a backlash and losing their jobs. It happens. I won’t name names, but anyone who pays close attention knows of recent examples.

So, yes, unqualified, unsophisticated biblicism as Smith describes it is impossible, but I just don’t think most evangelical scholars and leaders really believe it. They preach it to the choir to keep the choir happy with them. And that’s a real problem. But there is a biblicism that is not that unsophisticated and unqualified and its not impossible even if it does raise some difficult questions and issues. The alternatives, however, are worse.

Review: Christian Smith - The Bible Made Impossible, Part 3

I have selected Dr. Roger Olson's reviews to help in the assimilation of Christian Smith's book since he interacts with a multitude of Christians either in favor of, or in opposition to, the subject matter. As prelude, I would encourage a reading of the introductory post earlier submitted for this project - http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2011/10/read-christian-smith-bible-made.html.

- RE Slater

**********

Part 3 - First installment

Review of Smith, The Bible Made Impossible

by Roger Olson

Posted on September 25, 2011

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2011/09/first-installment-of-review-of-smith-the-bible-made-impossible/

Christian Smith, The Bible Made Impossible, Chapters 1 & 2

Chapter 1 It is necessary to understand three concepts in order to understand Smith’s argument in this book: 1) biblicism, 2) pervasive interpretive pluralism, and 3) impossible. There may be others, but these are necessary and sufficient for now.

The gist of Smith’s argument in this book is that biblicism, as he defines it, literally makes it impossible for the Bible to function as the church’s sole, ultimate authority for faith and practice because it leads inevitably and always to pervasive interpretive pluralism (henceforth PIP)—the situation in which there are multiple, competing interpretations of the Bible on crucial matters of Christian faith and life and there is no way to adjudicate them simply by appeal to the Bible.

Of course, anyone who knows even a modicum of church history and historical theology will recognize right away that this has been the argument of some Christians about the Protestant principle of sola scriptura (or even prima scriptura) for a long time. Most notably, but not uniquely, Catholics have made this argument ever since the Reformation.

After writing this book, Smith joined the Roman Catholic Church, but in the book itself he does not advocate that as the one and only solution to PIP. Rather, he offers some pointers to possible ways of softening the problem. I’ll get to those later.

First, what does Smith mean by “biblicism?” That’s a word with multiple meanings and uses, of course, so it’s important to know what Smith means by it. And it’s important to know that he thinks his definition of it is common to most conservative evangelicals (and possibly others). By “biblicism” Smith means “a constellation of related assumptions and beliefs about the Bible’s nature, purpose, and function…represented by ten assumptions or beliefs.” (4)

These ten assumptions or beliefs that, according to Smith, make up biblicism are: 

1. divine writing,
2. total representation,
3. complete coverage,
4. democratic perspicuity,
5. commonsense hermeneutics,
6. solo scriptura,
7. internal harmony,
8. universal applicability,
9. inductive method, and,
10. handbook model. (4-5)

The ways in which he defines these beliefs leads me to believe he is talking primarily about fundamentalism, but he labels the religious party that he thinks adheres to this constellation of beliefs about the Bible “conservative American Protestantism, especially evangelicalism.” (5)

One question that immediately arises, of course, is whether Smith has here created a straw man, labeled it “biblicism” and made it easy to destroy it.... Another way of asking that question is whether Smith’s “biblicism” is really held by the majority of educated conservative evangelicals. Throughout the book Smith attributes this biblicism to a number of conservative evangelical preachers, teachers, authors and to the grassroots of conservative evangelicalism. In Chapter 1 he gives as a prime example popular evangelical pastor and author John F. MacArthur, Jr. (7). But he also regards many mainline evangelical denominations’ and organizations’ statements of faith as reflecting this biblicism.

I think Smith means that this view of the Bible is IMPLIED, if not explicitly stated, by [what he] thinks the vast majority of evangelicals say about the Bible and how they tend to use it even if they sometimes qualify it out of necessity.

So, can we sum up “biblicism” as Smith means it in a few words? I’ll take a stab at it. It is the view that : 

1. the Bible is verbally inspired such that
2. the words written by the human authors are God’s own chosen words,
3. it is inerrant in everything it teaches—including matters of history, cosmology, etc.,
4. it is absolutely harmonious in its teachings,
5. it is perspicuous such that any relatively reasonable person can understand it,
6. and it covers everything any person needs to know to live a fulfilled life pleasing to God. This last point is what Smith means by “Handbook Model.” (5)

For those of you who have read the first chapter, I wonder if Smith mixes together or confuses scholarly evangelical biblicism with folk religious biblicism? Would conservative evangelical biblical scholars and theologians who agree with most of what he calls biblicism agree that the Bible is “a compendium of divine and therefore inerrant teachings on a full array of subjects—including science, economics, health, politics, and romance?” (5) [Too,] might it be possible to be a biblicist even by his standards without embracing that “Handbook Model?” I think perhaps so and, later in the book, Smith himself seems to work with this distinction. One can certainly believe the first nine points of the constellation without embracing the tenth. I think most educated biblicists would argue that the Bible provides divine guidance about these matters without providing “teachings” about them.

When Smith provides popular, institutional and scholarly examples of biblicism things get a bit murky. I’m not sure all the people and institutions he mentions really adhere to all ten points of his biblicism in the way he suggests. In this chapter, anyway, he rarely mentions individual evangelical scholars; instead he mentions and quotes from an array of conservative evangelical statements of faith as they touch on the Bible. I’m not sure all ten points of Smith’s biblicism can be found in all those statements of faith, but he would surely argue they are implied there. (Admittedly, however, SOME of the evangelical statements of faith about the Bible he quotes are shockingly naïve about the Bible. I suspect even most conservative evangelical scholars would have trouble working under them.)

So what does Smith mean by PIP? Simply put, he means that equally sincere, educated, spiritual biblical interpreters cannot come to agreement about crucial biblical teachings. Smith assumes that IF the Bible is what biblicists say it is, they should be able to. This seems right ASSUMING that “perspicuity” means what he says it means (as applied to Scripture). Here is what Smith says it means: “Any reasonably intelligent person can read the Bible in his or her own language and correctly understand the plain meaning of the text.” (4) I agree that most evangelicals believe this about CRUCIAL matters pertaining to salvation, but I’m not sure ANY educated evangelical or even fundamentalist thinks this about EVERY matter about which the Bible speaks. Else why do we have colleges, universities and seminaries with programs devoted to educating already reasonable people in interpreting the Bible? Perhaps there is sometimes a disconnect between what evangelicals SAY about the Bible and how they BEHAVE with regard to it. I think that is often so.

Let’s agree with Smith that PIP exists even among equally sincere, equally intelligent, equally spiritual conservative evangelicals. I think that’s safe to assume. Who can doubt that “The very same Bible—which biblicists insist is perspicuous and harmonious—gives rise to divergent understandings among intelligent, sincere, committed readers about what it says about most topics of interest?” (17) But notice that Smith says “most topics of interest.” Later it becomes clear that he thinks this is true of ALL topics of interest—that evangelicals so described diverge dramatically on virtually EVERYTHING taught in the Bible. Is that so? Don’t most, if not all, evangelicals agree on the several statements of the National Association of Evangelicals Statement of Faith? (You can look it up on line.) I think they do. So is Smith making a mountain of disagreement out of a molehill of disagreement? It depends, I guess, on what you think is “crucial” among the “topics of interest.”

**********

NAE Statement of Faith - http://www.nae.net/about-us/statement-of-faith

• We believe the Bible to be the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative Word of God.

• We believe that there is one God, eternally existent in three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
• We believe in the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, in His virgin birth, in His sinless life, in His miracles, in His vicarious and atoning death through His shed blood, in His bodily resurrection, in His ascension to the right hand of the Father, and in His personal return in power and glory.
• We believe that for the salvation of lost and sinful people, regeneration by the Holy Spirit is absolutely essential.
• We believe in the present ministry of the Holy Spirit by whose indwelling the Christian is enabled to live a godly life.
• We believe in the resurrection of both the saved and the lost; they that are saved unto the resurrection of life and they that are lost unto the resurrection of damnation.
• We believe in the spiritual unity of believers in our Lord Jesus Christ. 

**********

But Smith would simply respond, I suppose, by pointing out the minimal nature of the few articles of belief evangelicals agree on. And he would no doubt point out that they interpret them differently. For example, we all agree that God exists, but we debate endlessly God’s nature and attributes. Smith might say the devil (of PIP) is in the details—even of the few beliefs evangelicals claim to agree about. I’ll grant him that while reserving the right to think the consensus is greater than he suggests.

Clearly Smith is bothered by PIP among Christians and especially evangelicals. (I wonder if joining the Catholic Church is going to solve that problem for him? In spite of the authoritative magisterium there’s lots of interpretive pluralism among Catholics including Catholic biblical scholars and theologians.) I’m not as bothered by it as he is. Perhaps that’s because I’m a Pietist.... 

Later in the book Smith ridicules the Pietist saying “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity” because the doesn’t think there IS unity in essentials among evangelicals. I think there is—at least on the few doctrines I claim as essentials. And different interpretations of them and the non-essentials doesn’t trouble me as much as it apparently does Smith. John Wesley famously said “If your heart is as mine is, give me your hand.” Of course, many dogmatists have ridiculed Wesley for saying that, but I find it generous and accurate to the spirit of authentic Christianity which should be tolerant of differing interpretations on many things. (Surely Wesley did NOT mean “give me your hand even if you don’t believe in the deity of Jesus Christ or in salvation by grace alone or the bodily resurrection of Jesus or his miracles.) I don’t see why we can’t just agree to disagree about the non-essentials and not get all hot and bothered about that.

Smith states that evangelicals DO NOT agree on the essentials—either on what they mean or what they are. (24) Smith closes Chapter 1 with this ominous (to him) claim: “If the Bible is all that biblicism claims it to be, then Christians—especially those who share biblicists beliefs—ought to be able to come to a solid consensus about what it teaches, at least on most matters of importance. But they do not and apparently cannot. Quite the contrary, Christians, perhaps especially biblicist Christians, are ‘all over the map’ on what the Bible teaches about most issues, topics, and questions. In this way, the actual functional outcome of the biblicist view of scripture belies biblicism’s theoretical claims about the Bible. Something is wrong in the biblicist picture that cannot be ignored.” (26)

.
.
.
.

Before I go on to Chapter 2, allow me to respond to this claim. First, it seems to me (as I said above) that evangelical Christians do have a consensus on many, if not all, important matters that pertain to salvation. Where we disagree and fall into PIP is in matters not related to salvation such as eschatology, ecclesiology (including the sacraments) and God’s sovereignty. To the best of my knowledge, however, in general outlines, crucial doctrines that relate to being saved and living a life pleasing to God are settled for most, if not all, evangelicals. Second, while it may bother me somewhat, I do not find PIP on secondary issues of doctrine and practice a crisis of the magnitude Smith suggests.

Third, it does not seem obvious to me that PIP of a document means it is not all that biblicism says the Bible is (except perhaps belief 10 above). For example, the United States Constitution is regarded by most Americans and certainly by jurists to be in itself authoritative and perspicuous and harmonious within itself, etc. And yet PIP has always marked American jurisprudence. Does PIP in that context make the Constitution NOT what we believe it is—the sole, supreme authority for settling matters of law and policy in our country? Would Smith say that? PIP with regard to the Constitution does not arise from any flaw in the Constitution; it arises from finite and biased interpretations of it. To be sure, the Constitution is not clear about everything, and that causes some of the PIP about it, but nobody says throw it out because of that. We learn to live with PIP and muddle through our disagreements about its meaning and application.

Of course the analogy breaks down, but I would argue it doesn’t break down on the ONE POINT I’m making here—that just because a document gives rise to different interpretations does not mean it is not solely, supremely authoritative with regard to everything related to its subject matter. I agree that the Bible is not as clear as we would like it to be, but I think that’s only a problem when we try to make it answer questions it doesn’t answer. (The same would be true of the Constitution.) On crucial matters that pertain to its main subject matter (e.g., the character of God) it is quite clear. That others disagree with my interpretation doesn’t drive me to distraction. I just think they are biased. They think I am. So long as we can worship and witness and cooperate together for the kingdom of God I’m not particularly dismayed.

Still, I feel the force of Smith’s point, even if not as strongly as he would like me to. PIP is a problem among evangelicals WHEN it leads to breaking of fellowship. And all too often it does lead there. (For example, I once attended a conference of mostly Calvinists—long before I wrote Against Calvinism or even conceived of it! I was the lone Arminian there, so far as I could tell. The Calvinists, some who claimed to be my friends, quite blatantly NEVER invited me to sit with them at a meal, nor did any of them sit with me or others who were not as committed to Calvinism as they are. And throughout the conference there were no public prayers or worship of any kind. I could only conclude they did not think it right to worship, pray or even have table fellowship with people who claimed to be Christians but disagreed with their view of God’s sovereignty in salvation.) When I run up against PIP among equally sincere, spiritual, committed evangelical Christians, my first instinct is curiosity rather than dismay. And I may chalk it up to lack of clarity of Scripture, but I never chalk it up to any real defect in Scripture or even in those who interpret it differently (except, as I said before, if it’s on a matter crucial to salvation).

Having said all that, I have to say I agree with Smith that biblicism AS HE DEFINES AND DESCRIBES it is a problem; it is simply untenable. Scripture isn’t that—especially not a “handbook” of answers to all of life’s questions. (See my book Questions to All Your Answers [Zondervan] that includes a chapter on this subject of the Bible containing answers to all of life’s questions—something I equate with folk religion.)
.
.
.
.

Chapter 2 is entitled “The Extent and Source of Pervasive Interpretive Pluralism.”

Posted on September 25, 2011
by rogereolson

Smith runs through a laundry list of areas of Christian belief and practice where evangelicals strongly diverge while equally claiming that the Bible is clear. That is, all sides of these controversies among evangelicals claim the Bible truly settles the matter in their favor. This bothers Smith greatly. They include church polity, free will and predestination, Sabbath keeping, the morality of slavery (in the past), gender difference and equality, wealth, prosperity, poverty and blessing, war, peace and nonviolence, charismatic gifts, etc.

After discussing these controversies in some detail he concludes that “Evangelical biblicists are highly divergent from one another on many scriptural and theological issues and in their consequential cultural and institutional manifestations.” (36) Who could argue with that? But is it the Bible’s fault? Of course, Smith would say no—it is the fault of biblicism. But Smith SEEMS to be claiming (throughout the book) that the Bible speaks with multiple voices on many important doctrinal issues—that there really IS NO UNITY within the Bible, even when “progressive revelation” is taken into account. I’m not quite so eager to say that. I certainly admit that on many issues the Bible is either silent or unclear, but I’m not yet ready to say it speaks with multiple voices on any matter relating to salvation. That raises the question of the importance status of the issues Smith uses to disprove biblicism. Are any of them crucial to salvation or even to being a Christian? I would say not. But, of course, there are always SOME evangelicals who will claim their own pet doctrine, with which most evangelicals disagree, is crucial to being authentically Christian. Does that prove PIP or the crisis Smith claims? I’m not so sure.

HOW COULD THERE EVER BE A SOLUTION TO PIP OF THAT KIND? Isn’t it natural that SOME evangelicals (and others) will inflate some pet doctrine to a status of importance out of all proportion to it? I think so. I don’t see how that can be avoided. Does it prove anything other than that some evangelicals are fanatics and ought to be corrected by the majority and possibly shunned if they keep insisting their pet doctrine is crucial when it isn’t even a matter of historic orthodoxy let alone crucial to salvation? For example, in 1919 fundamentalist leader William Bell Riley added premillennialism to the list of “fundamentals of the faith.” Many fundamentalists embraced that move. But, over time, the vast majority of evangelicals said no to that. Sure, evangelicals disagree about the millennium; does that prove anything except that the Bible isn’t as clear as we’d like it to be and we ought to hold our beliefs about it lightly? Does the fact that the Bible isn’t as clear as we wish about that mean it isn’t perfectly clear about the deity of Jesus Christ or the resurrection or salvation through the cross? Does the fact that some people who call themselves Christians even disagree with all evangelicals about those doctrines (e.g., Jehovah’s Witnesses) mean the Bible ISN’T clear about them? I don’t think so.

Much of Chapter 2 is taken up with Smith’s discussion and rejection of six “possible biblicist replies” to his charge that biblicism makes the Bible impossible. I won’t go through them here. Some of them are simply ridiculous (e.g., that demons confuse people’s minds so that the clear meaning of Scripture is distorted) IF we’re talking about disagreements among evangelicals. IF I were a biblicist (which I’m not in Smith’s meaning of the term) I might pose a reply that I don’t think he considers. It is simply that ALL documents are open to interpretation and we should simply come to terms with that and consider it a result of our finiteness and fallenness and the inevitable ambiguity of documents BECAUSE of our distance from them and our limitations. This might sound like his first possible biblicist reply, but I think it is different. His first one is “blame-the-deficient-readers answer.” But he explains it as saying that all but one interpretation is simply wrong-headed and some people are wrong-headed (i.e., biased, confused, etc.). My proposed answer isn’t that. It is rather than the Bible is a historical document and, though verbally inspired, harmonious and perspicuous in and of itself, due to our distance from it and our human limitations of finitude and fallenness we will never come to full agreement about everything it teaches and should come to terms with that while striving to arrive at as much consensus as possible.

Note that nowhere in the book does Smith claim the Bible is ambiguous about the most important matters of salvation or even of basic Christian conduct. HE SEEMS TO BELIEVE with regard to subjects such as the deity and humanity of Christ, the resurrection, basic morality (e.g., you’re not permitted to have sex with just anyone because you want to), etc., that the Bible IS clear. What troubles him are the numerous topics of interest to evangelical Christians where it is not perfectly clear. That simply doesn’t bother me as much as it does him and I’m not as inclined as he is to blame it on the Bible even though I am ready to admit that the Bible is not as clear as we would like it to be on these secondary matters. But I think that over time some of these issues do become clear. For example, one of the subjects he uses to illustrate PIP is slavery. But wait! Christians HAVE come to consensus about that even though the Bible really ISN’T perfectly clear about it. So there’s hope for eventual agreement on these matters IF evangelicals persist in having dialogue about them. Over time more light will perhaps shine through Scripture and settle the issue in our minds.

The final section of Chapter 2 is “The Reality of Multivocality” (in the Bible). Here is one way he expresses it: “the Bible is multivocal in its plausible interpretive possibilities: it can and does speak to different listeners in different voices that appear to say different things. … This means that the Bible often confronts the reader with ‘semantic indeterminacy’.” (47) Interestingly, he quotes or refers to several conservative (or at least relatively conservative) evangelical scholars to support this. So who is it that denies it? Well, of course, fundamentalists. And, I would say, most of today’s “conservative evangelicals” who are really fundamentalists with manners (sometimes). (These are the people I call neo-fundamentalists.) I suspect that ALL of the evangelical scholars he quotes to support his view of the Bible’s multivocality consider themselves in some sense “biblicists,” just not in the very narrow sense Smith uses.

Smith ends Chapter 2 with this startling thesis: “To deny the multivocality of scripture is to live in a self-constructed world of unreality. Yet scriptural multivocality is a fact that profoundly challenges evangelical biblicism. It must be overcome or transcended, or biblicism is at least partly mistaken and needs revising.” (54) Agreed. Biblicism AS SMITH DEFINES IT needs revising. And many evangelicals, including some who would still gladly wear the label “biblicist,” have revised it or never adopted it.

One thing I am objecting to is Smith SEEMING equation of “evangelical” with “biblicist” IN HIS SENSE OF BIBLICISM. I know many evangelical scholars and some evangelical lay people (such as my brother who has no formal theological training) who have NEVER believed in biblicism in Smith’s sense. ALL OR MOST OF THEM would deny that Scripture speaks with many voices on matters pertaining to basic Christian orthodoxy. In other words, just because there are people who deny the deity of Christ does not require acknowledgement of PIP about the basic of Christology or the claim that the Bible speaks with many voices about this matter. Most non-fundamentalist evangelicals, however, would readily admit that the Bible at least SEEMS (as Smith says) to speak with several voices about SOME matters (e.g., women’s status in the church). Their explanations of this differ, no doubt, but few of them claim it speaks clearly, unambiguously, and univocally about this and other secondary matters about which we must use our best Scripture- and Spirit-guided judgment. One possible explanation of this situation is that PERHAPS God had his own reasons for leaving some matters unclear.

For example, I once heard a Baptist preacher say that the Bible is unclear about the issue of eternal security for a reason. If God told us unequivocally that our salvation can be lost, many (most?) Christians would live in fear and possibly despair. But if God told us unequivocally that our salvation cannot be lost, many (most?) Christians would use that as license to sin. So God purposely left traces of both truths in Scripture—none of which are so unambiguous that they amount to deception. One set of traces urges caution; the other urges confidence. The two do not actually contradict each other, but people intent on having clear, set doctrines about everything tend to interpret one set of traces through the other one and lose the intended balance.

In that case (the illustration immediately above) one could say that Scriptures speaks with two voices on this issue without claiming that the Bible is at fault in the sense of not being a sufficient source and norm of Christian belief and life.

In sum, then, up to here (through Chapter 2) I am not as troubled by PIP as Smith is and I do not think we need to resort to claims that the Bible is incoherent about crucial matters pertaining to salvation because of it. However, I agree with Smith that biblicism AS HE DEFINES IT is impossible and unnecessary.