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.

Review: Christian Smith - The Bible Made Impossible, Parts 1 and 2

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

**********

Review: Christian Smith - The Bible Made Impossible, Parts 1 and 2
by Roger Olson

Posted on September 17, 2011
Summary - http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson?s=christian+smith

Part 1 - An invitation to read and discuss (here) an important new book

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2011/09/an-invitation-to-read-and-discuss-here-an-important-new-book/

by Roger Olson
September 17, 2011

In about a week I plan to begin discussing here The Bible Made Impossible by Christian sociologist Christian Smith (Notre Dame). The book was recently published by Eerdmans. I consider it one of the most important challenges to evangelical theology ever written. The subtitle is Why Biblicism Is Not a Truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture. I invite you to get the book and join in the conversation about it. It is only 178 pages long and easy to read, but it packs a real punch.

I read the book in manuscript form about a year ago. The author sent it to me and asked for my feedback which I offered. Now I’m reading it in its published (hardback) form. I will discuss it here two chapters at a time. I will wait, however, until those interested in reading with me have time to obtain a copy. (Books ordered from amazon.com usually take less than a week to arrive.)

Smith is a well-known sociologist of religion whose studies have been reported on in major newspapers. A recently article in our local newspaper reported on a recent survey of America’s youths regarding their attitudes towards morals. The results were shocking and dismaying.

In this book Smith dabbles (and I don’t mean that in any demeaning way) in theology. He studied at three seminaries and has a life long interest in theology. He graduated from Wheaton College and has, until recently, considered himself an evangelical Christian.

In The Bible Made Impossible Smith takes on what he calls evangelical “biblicism,” arguing that it is an impossible approach to the Bible and doctrine. By “biblicism” he means “a particular theory about and style of using the Bible that is defined by a constellation of related assumptions and beliefs about the Bible’s nature, purpose, and function.” (4) He lists and describes ten such assumptions and beliefs that together make up “biblicism.” (4-5) I will enumerate those for those who choose not to read the book, but I think it will be extremely helpful (thought not necessary) to read the book along with me as I discuss it. In fact, to a certain extent, I will assume my readers are reading or have read the book. Others can listen in and will get the gist of the book, but they may not understand everything being said about it.

I plan to discuss the first two chapters on Monday, September 26. If you order the book (I get no kickbacks!) this Monday you will have it by September 26. You can certainly get it sooner by ordering the Kindle (or similar) version.

I will be posting here between now and then–on whatever topics come to my mind. So keep reading!


Part 2 - Preview of my discussion of The Bible Made Impossible

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2011/09/preview-of-my-discussion-of-the-bible-made-impossible/

by Roger Olson
September 22, 2011

Like some of you I’m very much looking forward to our conversations here about Christian Smith’s The Bible Made Impossible. Christian sent me an autographed copy and expressed a wish that he would hear what my students think of the book. Well, I won’t be using it as a text anytime very soon, but perhaps Christian will listen in here and find out what I and you think about the book.

Christian sent me a manuscript of the book about a year ago and asked for my feedback which I gladly gave him. He (or Brazos Press) didn’t ask for my recommendation for the jacket of the book. I guess he/they didn’t think my feedback was positive enough. I will say that I am in overall agreement with his proposals, but I doubt they are going to be a cure for the disease of biblicism he identifies and describes. And I think the very term “biblicism” is broad enough to encompass what he suggests. (I don’t give up on good words like biblicism easily. Christian tends to equate it with fundamentalism. I don’t.)

One criticism I have is that most, and perhaps all, of Christian’s proposals are old. He is a master at packaging and defending ideas moderate and progressive evangelicals have been promoting for decades. I would call his book a model of what I call postconservative evangelical theology. But much of what he argues for (as an antidote to what he calls evangelical biblicism) was offered by Stan Grenz. And yet Stan isn’t even mentioned in the book except in a list of theologians in a footnote. I guess Christian came to the same conclusions independent of Stan, but there are striking resemblances between their approaches to the Bible. Also, Christian’s approach is very similar to Kevin Vanhoozer’s (and he does mention Kevin). I get space in the book (for my dogma, doctrine, opinion taxonomy) and I can tell Christian read Reformed and Always Reforming.

None of this detracts from the value of Christian’s book. To get the same ideas (without his book) you’d have to read quite a few books. He pulls much together in a way not elsewhere between two covers in less than 200 pages.

So watch for my first review of the book this coming Monday. I will discuss two chapters at a time which will take four messages here. The fourth one will be over only one chapter and the conclusion. If at all possible, please read the book before Monday or during the discussion.

Christian Smith: The Bible as Sacrament

"In general, a wide gulf continues to exist between biblically generated theology and the theology of theologians - and this gulf will continue to stymie the vision of bringing together the fields of biblical studies with theology."

 

- J.R. Daniel Kirk, August 20, 2011

( http://www.jrdkirk.com/2011/08/20/colloquium-on-theological-interpretation-reflections/)

 

 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Bible as Sacrament

http://masonslater.com/2011/10/26/the-bible-as-sacrament/

by Mason Slater

posted October 26, 2011

What is the Bible?

In The Bible Made Impossible, Christian Smith lays a withering critique at the feet of popular and academic approaches which treat the Scriptures as a handbook to life, or an encyclopedia of timeless doctrines.

Though these approaches are often framed in the language of a “high view” of Scripture, they tend to ignore the Bible we actually have in favor of the Bible we think God ought to have given us.

In the process we end up making the Bible something other than what it testifies about itself – focusing on it as a sure foundationalist starting point on which to build watertight theological systems and “biblical” guidelines for relationships or politics.

But when Jesus explains the meaning of the Scriptures to his disciples he describes the text as a witness, a written word that points to the Word [of Life (Himself)].

“Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.” – Acts 24:26-27

And, if the function of the Bible is to point to Christ, then perhaps talking about it as a handbook or encyclopedia is missing the point. Perhaps a better way to speak of the Scriptures is with the language of sacrament.

In the same way that the Eucharist and baptism ultimately point to and reenact the story of Jesus Christ, so too Scripture is not an end to itself but a witness to that Story.

So the text does not call us primarily to systems of theology or directions for life (though both may be there), but rather calls us to tell once more the story of the cruciform victory of Israel’s Messiah over sin and death – the resurrected Messiah who is mysteriously God-in-flesh.

We then read the rest of Scripture through the lens of that Gospel story. Not in a simplistic “every verse is about Jesus” sort of way, but in a Christotellic way where every text is read with the climax of the story in the crucified-and-risen Christ shaping our understanding.

The Bible then is not made less important, it is the inspired witness to the Word of God, but its role is clarified. Like the Eucharist and baptism, the Scriptures are a vital part of the Christian faith, but like the other sacraments it points not to itself but to Jesus Christ whose Story it tells.

“It is therefore true that Holy Scripture is the Word of God for the Church, that it is Jesus Christ for us, as He Himself was for the prophets and apostles during the forty days.” 

                                                                                                                             – Karl Barth

The Mission: Love, Penance, Forgiveness, Restoration

The Mission - Trailer - (1986) - HQ

The Mission - Gabriel's Oboe (Full HD)

Gabriel's Oboe(Nella Fantasia)

Robert DeNiro reads 1 corinthians 13

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmUxkdTZY18&feature=related

1 Corinthians 13

English Standard Version (ESV)

The Way of Love

13 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned,[a] but have not love, I gain nothing.

4 Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant 5 or rude. It does not insist on its own way; itis not irritable or resentful;[b] 6 it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. 7 Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

8 Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away.11 When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. 12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.

13 So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

Footnotes:
1 Corinthians 13:3 Some manuscripts deliver up my body [to death] that I may boast
1 Corinthians 13:5 Greek irritable and does not count up wrongdoing

E. Morricone-1986 The Mission [Full Album ]

Ennio Morricone "The Mission"

Sound Track Remix

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kghJGeMYI3U

Christian Smith - Introduction: The Bible Made Impossible

Deliver Us from a Wilderness of
Our Own Making
by R.E. Slater

I am including an excerpt of Christian Smith's book on biblicism as a way of beginning a review on this very important subject. Later articles will more fully review Smith's proposals but the reader may begin reviewing this subject with me now through this posting here below.

As an introductory note, the term biblicism seems clearly associated with the idea of "popular folk religion"... meaning that, "popular folk ideas, religious statements, pious cliches, and idealized sentiments" are used by Christians when speaking of their faith to break it down into meaningful statements to their life experiences. This is done by quoting to each other cherished abbreviated proverbs, murky haikus, quaint ideologies, judgmental temperaments, over-simplified characterizations, and generally, a form of religious-speak that is usually found within a sociological grouping of Christians when they get together to talk over their life experiences and the confusing, sinful world of people around them. Examples of these statements are given at the end of this post where Christian Smith cites dozens of popular expressions that we have all heard at one-time-or-another spoken at church or with one another in daily conversation. Popular sentiments casually expressed from the pulpit, radio, TV, family and well-meaning friends, each sentiment holding a facsimile of truth to it but ringing hollow as pious platitudes and cliches in the specific instances of our daily Christian lives in need of hard answers and clearer truths.

For myself, this type of mindset is most appropriately named folk religion, and became the reason that motivated me to re-analyze my Christian faith beginning over a decade ago in the late 1990s. One that is still evangelical but more critical of it, less in-favor with its religiosity, one which I now term an emergent Christian faith found at the further end of the spectrum of evangelicalism.  And so, I have begun synthesizing my journey within the stories and subjectlines of this blog in an attempt to convey what I have learned about what my faith is and is not; what it means and what it shouldn't mean; and how I presently understand it in comparison with popular religious expressions and opinions. It became especially clearer to me when more carefully listening to what Evangelicals were saying (or not saying) around me; or witnessing how my Evangelical faith was responding to specific issues around it before re-framing those perceived realities and events accumulating around it into unsatisfying arguments and reimaged conceptions. And much like how a sudoku puzzle is solved by looking for what is not there - as versus what is plainly seen - my judgments began to amass and grow in correspondence to Evangelicalism's overly harsh criticisms, fallacious evaluations, blithe assertions, and self-sustaining parochialisms. Consequently, this then caused me to judge my own accumulated Evangelical traditions as too shallow and on-worthy of my continued support in its current self-laudatory forms.

Having then become disenchanted with living my faith through fashionized Christian rhetoric, stylized metaphors and politically-correct expressions, what I hungered for now is to hear God's Word afresh in a more-objective, less-defensive, non-evangelically religious terms and popular cliches. Especially when presented by well-meaning Christians who coerce, threaten, bully and judge my faith when straying out of the safe boundary lands of their Evangelicalism. I yearn more than ever to hear God in a clearer light, one more realistic, more edgy, more confrontational to the popular notions of today's religious folkisms. Something that would strip away my religion and get back to its very core - the very person and fellowship of the Triune-God speaking through open Scriptures, through the atonement, through life's experiences, and the world about me.

Nor has this journey been especially easy to travel, and yet, hopefully, it will become more satisfying to share with faith-seekers following similar journeys as tortuous as mine own; who are attempting to discern truth-from-error on both sides of the Evangelical/Emergent fence! Never had I expected such an intense personal disruption, one without sufficient guides or signposts, without historical precedents, bereft of mentors, teachers, or fellowship. One finding no encouragement and no advantage to it; a singular path dimly lit, if at all, filled with judgments, condemnation, and intense personal aloneness. I felt as if in the days of the prophet Jeremiah who was thrown into the bottom of a miry pit of clay by religious zealots doubtful of his faith. Who looked up out of his cold, wet prison yearning for answers and direction from God but received little hope and cheer in return. All the while being personally vilified, doubted and made miserable by the religious community around him. Eventually all this changed for Jeremiah but it took a very long time during which he experienced the daily provocation in his spirit of new truths about God and his place in the world; along with a personal rejection of all the accumulated, ingrained, religious platitudes he had acquired in his life; and a daily fresh determination to re-assess not only his own past but to re-envision his new present and the future that beckoned him. And like my own experience, I felt my own proponents had as little charm as the predecessors of my newly-reforming faith. Each side swinging at the other side with no cause, and with even less reason, at one another. When instead a fellowship should have been arising that would create a stronger, more unified, and more honest discussion and interaction between Evangelicals and Emergents. It was enough to cause one to despair and give up hope. Neither side was guiltless, and both sides were inclined towards disagreements and hostilities towards one another.

And yet it all makes sense now after the many desperate years (including as many recent desperate months!) of religious intrication. Through it all, a new freedom has been found that does not wish to leave me. A spiritual land discovered that breathes more pure, more alive, more wondrous with every breath. One that I like and intend to keep and not give back. Come walk with me, and the many other brothers and sisters I am discovering, as Christianity's outer markers are reset and we regain what was nobly lost in our modernized religious culture of the past hundred years. It is all new territory requiring many explorers and all are welcomed to journey to God's new lands of global outreach and assimilation. Once begun none will wish to turn back... praise God through His Spirit for delivering us from a wilderness of our own making!

R.E. Slater

October 22, 2011

Christian Smith - The Bible Made Impossible

by Christian Smith

This Introduction is part of a seven part series on Christian Smith's book.

Go to this link here to see the remaining 6 Reveiws (Parts 1- 6):

http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/search/label/Bible%20-%20Christian%20Biblicism

The entirety of this article's contents may be found here -

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1587433036/ref=as_li_ss_tl/?ie=UTF8&tag=newwayfor-20&linkCode=as2&camp=217145&creative=399373&creativeASIN=1587433036#reader_B0053XXDZ8

© 2011 by Christian Smith

Published by Brazos Press

a division of Baker Publishing Group

P.O. Box 6287, Grand Rapids, MI 49516-6287

www.brazospress.com

E-book edition created 2011

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means—for example, electronic, photocopy, recording—without the prior written permission of the publisher. The only exception is brief quotations in printed reviews.

ISBN 978-1-4412-3205-2

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is on file at the Library of Congress, Washington, DC.

Scripture quotations are from the Holy Bible, New International Version®. NIV®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.™ Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved worldwide. www.zondervan.com

Contents

Cover

Title Page

Copyright Page

Introduction

Part 1: The Impossibility of Biblicism

1: Biblicism and the Problem of Pervasive Interpretive Pluralism

2: The Extent and Source of Pervasive Interpretive Pluralism

3: Some Relevant History, Sociology, and Psychology

4: Subsidiary Problems with Biblicism

Part 2: Toward a Truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture

5: The Christocentric Hermeneutical Key

6: Accepting Complexity and Ambiguity

7: Rethinking Human Knowledge, Authority, and Understanding

Conclusion

Index

Notes

Introduction

by Christian Smith

This book addresses Christians, especially evangelicals, who believe that the Bible is a divine word of truth that should function as an authority for Christian faith and practice, and who want to espouse a coherent position that justifies and defends that belief. My contention here is that the American evangelical commitment to “biblicism,” which I will define and describe in detail below, is an untenable position that ought to be abandoned in favor of a better approach to Christian truth and authority.

What follows is not an attack on Christian authority or the Bible. It is rather a critical interrogation of certain aspects of one specific account. The goal of this book is not to detract from the plausibility, reliability, or authority of the Christian faith or from scripture. The goal is to persuade readers that one particular theory of Christian plausibility, reliability, and authority—what I call biblicism—is inadequate to the task.

I am aware that the term “biblicism” is often used pejoratively, as a disrespectful slight suggesting ignorance and lack of sophistication. I intend the use of the term here in a rather more neutral, descriptive sense, denoting a particular tradition of approach to scripture, as described in greater detail below. I contend that the biblicism that characterizes the thinking and practice of much of American evangelicalism is not so much “wrong” as it is impossible, even taken on its own terms. It simply does not work as proposed and cannot function in a coherent way.

In order for evangelical biblicism to appear to work, therefore, those who believe in it have to engage in various forms of textual selectivity, denial, and contortion—which actually end up violating biblicist intentions. Most of these are practiced covertly, not in any sneaky way, but simply as the learned, taken-for-granted, and therefore largely unintentional habits of a particular subcultural style of thinking and behaving. Contemporary Christians who want to be theologically orthodox, biblical, and evangelical (in the best sense of the word) can and must do better. But before anyone is motivated to do better, we must confront the real problems with the current, inadequate biblicist account.

To be clear, I am not suggesting that all American evangelicals are biblicists. Some are not. And some others mix biblicism with other forms of authority, such as personal “leadings of the Spirit.” Many simply assume a kind of background biblicism without giving it much systematic thought. Many academic and more thoughtful evangelicals also tend to be more selective and careful in the way they articulate their biblicism. Furthermore, while I am focused here on evangelicals in particular, nearly all American Protestant fundamentalists are also biblicists, as are many if not most charismatic and pentecostal Christians.[1] I am suggesting, therefore, that biblicism of the kind I describe below represents the epistemological center of gravity of much of American evangelicalism (and conservative Protestantism more generally) and so warrants the kinds of questions raised in this book.

By “biblicism” I mean a theory about the Bible that emphasizes together its exclusive authority, infallibility, perspicuity, self-sufficiency, internal consistency, self-evident meaning, and universal applicability. Different communities within American evangelicalism emphasize various combinations of these points differently. But all together they form a constellation of assumptions and beliefs that define a particular theory and practice. My argument as follows does not question the doctrine of the divine inspiration of the Bible.[2] Nor am I here discounting the crucially important role that the Bible must play in the life of the church and the lives of individual Christians. I am not suggesting that the Bible is just a set of historical writings set in particular cultures, or the record of human subjective experiences of the divine that has little to say to contemporary people without being translated into terms that modern people can accept. Instead, what I say here is simply that the biblicism that in much of American evangelicalism is presupposed to be the cornerstone to Christian truth and faithfulness is misguided and impossible. It does not and cannot live up to its own claims.

I must also insist that my motives, goals, and arguments have nothing to do with promoting or representing theological liberalism. I am no theological liberal. While I believe that orthodox Christians need to engage intellectually and socially with theological liberals, I am and always have been a skeptic of theological liberalism as a project. I view the program of liberalism as an unworthy corrosion of historically orthodox, evangelical (again, in the best sense of that word) Christianity. I view theological liberalism—despite its good intentions—as naive intellectually, problematic in its typical ecclesial expression, and susceptible to unfortunate and sometimes reprehensible social and political expressions. It was no accident, for example, as Karl Barth explained at the time, that the prominent leaders of theological liberalism in the German church together publicly endorsed the causes of both Kaiser Wilhelm in World War I in 1914 and Hitler and the Nazis in 1933. When the church lacks a sovereign word of God that is not defined in terms of human subjectivity, experience, and culture, such ill-fated political moves become hard to resist. The theological liberal program lacks internal resources to help expose idolatry and so recurrently falls prey to the latest cultural movements and political fashions. I would go so far as to agree with J. Gresham Machen that theological liberalism is not one particular branch of Christianity; it is rather actually a very different religion from Christianity.[3]

However, opposing theological liberalism does not necessitate biblicism as the only viable alternative, as some seem to believe. This notion is an unfortunate legacy of the American modernist-fundamentalist battles of the early twentieth century. Slapping the “liberal!” label on others is still a knee-jerk reaction of many evangelicals against any argument that on first glance does not seem identical to or more conservative than their own position. This tendency has much more to do with the sociological process of maintaining safe identity boundaries and avoiding truly challenging intellectual engagements than it does with sustaining Christian faith with appropriate confidence, integrity, and trust in God.[4] In any case, to be clear, I deny any attempts to label the argument of this book “liberal.”

My argument in what follows focuses not merely on theories about what the Bible is believed to be and how it ought to function as an authority. It also focuses on how in practice the Bible is often actually read and used as an authority and on the results that this produces. I will suggest that the problematic results are not mere accidents or worst practices within an otherwise sound approach, but they are rather the inevitable outcomes of bad biblicist theory. In this I do not assume that empirical facts about what actually happens are all that are ever worth knowing. A great deal of Christianity is of course about conforming problematic empirical experience to what is ultimately true in and about reality. However, actual empirical human practices and experiences of Bible reading, interpretation, and application—especially when they are widespread and endemic—tell us a great deal about the adequacy of our theories about the Bible.

In what follows I will not engage a number of issues that have long occupied certain kinds of critics and defenders of the Bible. One of those concerns “higher criticism” of the text, such as whether the purported author of a certain text really was that author or whether the events described in a text “really” happened in that way. Those may or may not be interesting and important issues, but they do not concern me here. Neither will I engage the exercise of finding long lists of scriptural texts that appear to contradict each other, to which some sophomoric skeptics devote themselves in order to try to undermine the Bible’s coherence and authority.[5] That merely mirrors the worst kind of fundamentalist literalism, to which few thoughtful evangelicals subscribe, and betrays pitiable misunderstandings of how human language works.

My line of reasoning in this book will run as follows. First, I will argue that most biblicist claims are rendered moot by a more fundamental problem (which few biblicists ever acknowledge) that undermines all the supposed achievements of biblicism: the problem of pervasive interpretive pluralism. Even among presumably well-intentioned readers—including many evangelical biblicists—the Bible, after their very best efforts to understand it, says and teaches very different things about most significant topics. My suggestion is that it becomes beside the point to assert a text to be solely authoritative or inerrant, for instance, when, lo and behold, it gives rise to a host of many divergent teachings on important matters. Authority implies and requires definitive instruction, direction, or guidance. As the nineteenth-century Princeton Seminary theologian Charles Hodge stated, “If the Scriptures be a plain book, and the Spirit performs the functions of a teacher to all the children of God, it follows inevitably that they must agree in all essential matters in their interpretation of the Bible.”[6] But definitive instruction, direction, or guidance is precisely what pervasive interpretive pluralism precludes.

So, theorists about the Bible can assert theoretical claims of scriptural authority and infallibility as much as they want. But those ring hollow because of the ubiquitous variety and combinations of “biblical” teachings that sincere readers of the Bible think it teaches on nearly every subject. To be clear, the problem is not that theoretical claims to biblical sufficiency or authority are proved to be wrong or erroneous per se; rather, they are defeated in relevance by the undeniable lack of interpretive agreement and consistency among those who share the same biblicist background. That defeat in relevance then gives rise to questions about the truth of those theoretical claims. Biblicists might offer a variety of responses to this problem, to be sure, but none of them, I will suggest, are adequate to address the difficulty. So, pervasive interpretive pluralism remains a debilitating problem for the relevance of biblicist theory.

Having made that primary case, I will then turn more briefly to a subsidiary examination of the larger question of the defensibility of biblicism generally. My argument focuses on the fact that the Bible contains a variety of texts that are problematic in different ways and that biblicist (among other) readers rarely know how to handle. Some are texts that frankly almost no reader is going to live by, however committed in theory they may be to biblicism. Others are texts that need explaining away by appeals to cultural relativity (although no principled guidelines exist about when that explanation should and should not be applied). Some are passages that are simply strange. And some are texts that seem to be incompatible with other texts.

In order not to let these problematic texts endanger their formal theory of the Bible, biblicists tend to respond in three ways. The first is simply to ignore the problematic texts, essentially pretending that they do not exist. The second is to “interpret” the problematic texts as if they say things that they do not in fact say. The third is to develop elaborate contortions of highly unlikely scenarios and explanations—of the sort to which nobody would ever resort in any other part of life—which seem to rescue the texts from the problems.[7] But, from the viewpoint of the biblicist perspective itself, these strategies should be illegitimate. Reliance on them to sustain a biblicist position is self-defeating. In addition, I will show, first, that biblicism itself is not a self-evident, much less necessary, teaching of the Bible about itself, and, second, that biblicism has some problematic, pernicious pastoral consequences for many thoughtful youth raised in biblicist traditions.

I conclude with three chapters advancing a number of proposals for overcoming American evangelical biblicism. My proposals assume that biblicism can be escaped not by turning away from an evangelical approach to the Bible but rather by becoming even more truly evangelical in the reading of scripture. Contrary to the fears of some biblicists, leaving biblicism behind need not mean losing the best of evangelicalism but, instead, can mean strengthening an evangelical hermeneutic of scripture.

How I came to write a book about biblical authority and scriptural interpretation is sometimes beyond me. (I have no doubt that some readers, by the time they get well into the book, will wish I had never written it.) I did not start off with that intention in mind, but it began simply with me (someone who tends to think better when writing) merely drafting out some thoughts and questions for myself and perhaps to bounce off a few friends for their reactions. Needless to say, it grew from there. I am not a biblical scholar or a theologian professionally—although I have studied at three Boston Theological Institute schools (Gordon Conwell, where I took a course on Christology from David Wells; Harvard Divinity School, where I studied historical theology with Margaret Miles and Ian Siggins, among others; and Andover Newton, where I took an excellent course on scripture with Gabriel Fackre) and have spent much of my life reading in theology.

Professionally, I am a sociologist. For purposes of writing this book, that is both an asset and a liability. It is an asset, I believe, because it gives me a perspective that is different from many who deal with these topics for a living and so enables me to perhaps see things that some others may not. Being a sociologist—particularly one not employed at an evangelical institution with doctrinal standards statements determining the viability of my employment—also frees me to say things in print that I think are true without the accompanying worry that I will lose my job as a result. I know that there are at least some employees at evangelical institutions who share the concerns I lay out in this book but who cannot give voice to them because of the internal political problem this would create.[8] I am fortunate not to have to worry about such matters.

But being a sociologist is also in some ways a liability in writing this book, since I do not have the expertise in certain complex areas of scholarship upon which this book touches. I do not claim to bring such expertise to my argument; rather, the force of my case, such as it is, grows merely from the asking of some very simple questions and the refusal to settle for what I think are inadequate standard answers. Sometimes what needs to be asked or said—especially in contexts of well-established and taken-for-granted routines that at least some powerful people have a stake in maintaining—is not all that sophisticated but is instead quite elementary. Pervasive interpretive pluralism is the proverbial massive elephant in the room of evangelical biblicism that nobody talks about. I want to talk about it.

I should also say up front, for purposes of full disclosure, that, since completing the writing of this book, I have joined the Catholic Church. My reasons for becoming Catholic—an evangelical Catholic, I might add—were many, and only partly related to the issues raised here.[9] This fact of my autobiography, however, takes nothing away from the importance and legitimacy of this book’s argument for American evangelicalism—a movement about which I still care, in certain ways admire, and want to see realizing its best potential. Toward that end, for evangelical Protestants who intend to remain evangelical, the argument of this book stands strong and deserves to be engaged and answered. The constructive suggestions with which I conclude this book hold true for evangelical Protestants, and, to be clear, no reader needs to become Catholic in order to embrace any or all of them.

Finally, it should go without saying that just because I cite a certain author or publication, that does not mean that I accept and endorse everything he, she, or it says. Oftentimes one wants to connect with certain specific ideas or perspectives of another without implying a full-scale endorsement of the other’s entire intellectual program. Most scholars know this. But, since among American evangelicals issues surrounding the nature of the Bible are so sensitive and politically charged, it is probably necessary for me to avoid guilt-by-association by saying it explicitly: merely because I cite a certain author or publication, that itself does not mean that I accept and endorse everything he, she, or it says.

I owe a debt of thanks to Mark Regnerus, Brian Brock, Mark Noll, Stanley Hauerwas, Richard Flory, Stan Gaede, Rich Mouw, Katie Spencer, Trish Snell, Peter Mundey, Scot McKnight, Charles Cosgrove, Bill Webb, Roger Olson, Jeff McSwain, Douglas Campbell, Meredith Whitnah, Kevin Vanhoozer, Peter Enns, Craig Allert, Roger Lundin, Robert K. Johnson, Bob Brenneman, Kent Sparks, and David Sikkink for critical feedback on early versions of this manuscript. As is customary to say, and is true here also, this book was strengthened considerably by these people’s helpful feedback; yet, none of them is to be held responsible—even by association—for any of its mistakes, inaccuracies, confusions, oversights, or oversimplifications, of which I am aware there may be more than a few.

Finally, I owe a large debt of gratitude to my fellow B4B partners: Jeff McSwain, Douglas Campbell, Allan Keoneke, and (for one very enjoyable year) Brian Brock (as well as sometimes Jeremy Begbie, Allan Poole, and Peter Hausman)—to whom I dedicate this book, whether they like that or not. Nobody could hope to enjoy a more fun, stimulating, and edifying group of theological companions while meeting at Whole Foods to hash out life-changing theology. May they and their work prosper, especially Jeff’s at the Reality Ministries Center in downtown Durham, North Carolina.

1

Biblicism and the Problem of
Pervasive Interpretive Pluralism

by Christian Smith

The “biblicism” that pervades much of American evangelicalism is untenable and needs to be abandoned in favor of a better approach to Christian truth and authority. By untenable I do not simply mean that it is wrong, but rather that it is literally impossible, at least when attempted consistently on its own terms. It cannot actually be sustained, practiced, and defended. Biblicism is one kind of an attempt to explain and act on the authority of the Bible, but it is a misguided one. In the end it cannot and in fact does not work.

A better alternative to biblicism is needed that takes seriously scriptural authority but in a way that does so beyond the framework of biblicism. Before any biblicist or semibiblicist is going to be motivated to seek a postbiblicist alternative to biblicism, however, they must first become convinced of biblicism’s untenability. Seeing that biblicism really is a dead end may motivate a constructive search for something better. This chapter and the next three seek to persuade readers that biblicism is a dead end, best to be abandoned.

What Is Biblicism?

Many functional biblicists in America have not heard of the term “biblicism” or do not know that it describes them. That does not matter. What does matter are the real belief system and the practices it animates. Whether called by that name or not, biblicism is prevalent and powerful in American Protestantism, particularly among conservative Protestants. As John Frame, professor of theology at Reformed Theological Seminary (Orlando, Florida) concludes in a thoughtful paper titled, “In Defense of Something Close to Biblicism,” “although Protestant theology under the sola Scriptura principle is not biblicist, it is not always easy to distinguish it from biblicism.”[10] The word “biblicism” turns out to mean different things to different people. It is therefore important to be clear about the meaning I intend here.

All that I write below is intended to reference the following definition. By “biblicism” I mean a particular theory about and style of using the Bible that is defined by a constellation of related assumptions and beliefs about the Bible’s nature, purpose, and function. That constellation is represented by ten assumptions or beliefs:

1. Divine Writing: The Bible, down to the details of its words, consists of and is identical with God’s very own words written inerrantly in human language.
2. Total Representation: The Bible represents the totality of God’s communication to and will for humanity, both in containing all that God has to say to humans and in being the exclusive mode of God’s true communication.[11]
3. Complete Coverage: The divine will about all of the issues relevant to Christian belief and life are contained in the Bible.[12]
4. Democratic Perspicuity: Any reasonably intelligent person can read the Bible in his or her own language and correctly understand the plain meaning of the text.[13]
5. Commonsense Hermeneutics: The best way to understand biblical texts is by reading them in their explicit, plain, most obvious, literal sense, as the author intended them at face value, which may or may not involve taking into account their literary, cultural, and historical contexts.
6. Sola Scriptura:[14] The significance of any given biblical text can be understood without reliance on creeds, confessions, historical church traditions, or other forms of larger theological hermeneutical frameworks, such that theological formulations can be built up directly out of the Bible from scratch.
7. Internal Harmony: All related passages of the Bible on any given subject fit together almost like puzzle pieces into single, unified, internally consistent bodies of instruction about right and wrong beliefs and behaviors.
8. Universal Applicability: What the biblical authors taught God’s people at any point in history remains universally valid for all Christians at every other time, unless explicitly revoked by subsequent scriptural teaching.
9. Inductive Method: All matters of Christian belief and practice can be learned by sitting down with the Bible and piecing together through careful study the clear “biblical” truths that it teaches.

The prior nine assumptions and beliefs generate a tenth viewpoint that—although often not stated in explications of biblicist principles and beliefs by its advocates—also commonly characterizes the general biblicist outlook, particularly as it is received and practiced in popular circles:

10. Handbook Model: The Bible teaches doctrine and morals with every affirmation that it makes, so that together those affirmations comprise something like a handbook or textbook for Christian belief and living, a compendium of divine and therefore inerrant teachings on a full array of subjects—including science, economics, health, politics, and romance.[15]

Biblicism is not a comprehensively formalized position always explicated in exactly these ten points and subscribed to identically by all adherents. Different people and groups emphasize and express a variety of these points somewhat differently. Some may even downplay or deny particular points here and there—there are, for example, highly biblicist denominations and seminaries that are unapologetically confessional. The point is not that biblicism is a unified doctrine that all of its adherents overtly and uniformly profess. The point, rather, is that this constellation of interrelated assumptions and beliefs informs and animates the outlooks and practices of major sectors of institutional and popular conservative American Protestantism, especially evangelicalism.

Evangelical biblicism has a long history in America—one revealing how much popular biblicism was driven not by fellowship with the historic church but by the particular sensibilities of life in a postrevolutionary, nineteenth-century, individualistic, republican democracy.[16] However intensely and with whatever variations it may be expressed by different groups, biblicism is the foundational belief and practice of many tens of millions of American Christians—perhaps as many as a hundred million (according to General Social Survey data, about one-third of all adult Americans say that they believe that “the Bible is the actual word of God and should be taken literally, word for word”).[17] Biblicism can readily be found in the belief statements of scores of denominations, seminaries, and parachurch ministries; seen in the words of myriad Christian authors and speakers; heard in the messages of innumerable pulpits and Bible studies; and observed in the practices of countless personal devotions.

Popular, Institutional, and Scholarly Examples of Biblicism

To put a finer point of particularity on the “ism” about which I have generalized above, I next cite some examples of specific expressions of biblicism. I draw here from an almost limitless supply of possible examples, both academic and popular, using numbers in brackets (e.g., [5]) throughout—at the risk of oversimplifying and overlabeling—to indicate when any of the ten biblicist themes noted above are expressed or implied. I begin with popular or “folk” expressions of biblicism[18] and then move on to more scholarly and institutional examples.

Biblicism is everywhere in evangelical popular culture, including, for instance, on the Internet. One Bible website dedicated to helping readers in “selecting the best Bible translations,” for example, is entitled “God’s Handbook to Life” [10].[19] Another Christian music and lyrics website devotes a page to “The Bible, God’s Word—Our Manual for Life” [10], which says that the Bible “contains the solution for every problem you are facing today [3]. The Bible is an encyclopedia on all subjects you can think of under the sun” [10].[20] Likewise, Faith and Fitness Magazine on its website calls the Bible “His Instruction Manual—Our Guidebook for a Healthy Life” [10], explaining that

the Bible is designed by God to provide us a blueprint for living life. It’s like an owner’s manual for a piece of exercise equipment [9 implied]. We can make the best use of the equipment if we read the owner’s manual so we are aware of how to use all the special capabilities and how all the “buttons and whistles” work. When it breaks down, we can look in the manual to know how to repair it [10].[21]

Similarly, the author of the “Bible Authors” webpage says that

the Bible was written through more than 40 men, but it fits together perfectly as if written by one man [7] because the author of all 66 books is the Holy Spirit [1]. The Bible was written over a time span of about 2,000 years, and it is totally accurate in matters of History, Prophecy, and every issue of life. There are no contradictions in the Bible [7]. . . . The Bible contains the mind of God [1]. . . . It is the traveler’s map, the pilgrim’s staff, the pilot’s compass, the soldier’s sword [4, 5 implied], and the Christian’s charter . . . [that] condemns all who trifle with its holy contents. The Word of God is your absolute, infallible guide for life. Just like every major purchase is accompanied by an owner’s manual which tells you how to operate it, if you do not go by the book, it won’t work. The Bible is God’s owner’s manual for your life [10]. God would not save you and call you to service without clear, exact directions. You must go by the book.[22]

As another example, popular evangelical pastor and author John F. MacArthur Jr. writes that the Bible is “the only reliable and sufficient worship manual.”[23] Folk biblicism is also expressed in products such as automobile bumper stickers and T-shirts, as with the following actual instances, all currently for sale:

• God said it, I believe it, that settles it!
• BIBLE—Basic Instruction Before Leaving Earth
• Vote Responsibly—Vote the Bible!
• Confused? Read the Directions! [picture of Bible]
• Have You Read My #1 Best Seller [picture of Bible]? There Is Going to Be a Test. —God
• Have Truth Decay? Brush Up on Your Bible
• Hey Bible Hater! You’d Fit Right in with Communist-Atheist Regimes, Dictatorships, and Islamic States!
• Got Scripture?
• Certified Bible Thumper! [themes 1, 4–8, and 10 implied]

Biblicism also pervades the evangelical book-publishing market, which entails both popular evangelical markets and formal evangelical institutions (Thomas Nelson, Harvest House, NavPress, InterVarsity Press, etc.). The following are examples, drawn from among a longer list of similar books, almost all of which are currently still in print, all of whose titles listed here are, for present purposes, well worth reading word for word:

• Bible Answers for Almost All Your Questions
• Biblical Principles for Starting and Operating a Business
• 100 Biblical Tips to Help You Live a More Peaceful and Prosperous Life
• Cooking with the Bible: Recipes for Biblical Meals
• The Bible Cure for Cancer
• The World According to God: A Biblical View of Culture, Work, Science, Sex, and Everything Else
• The Biblical Guide to Alternative Medicine
• Bible Answers for Every Need
• Bible Prophecy 101: A Guide to End Times in Plain Language
• What Does the Bible Say about . . . The Ultimate A to Z Resource to Contemporary Topics One Would Not Expect to Find in the Bible, Fully Illustrated—Discover What the Bible Says about 500 Real-Life Topics [pictures on the cover include golfing, pets, flower arrangements, and a whistle]
• How to Make Choices You Won’t Regret—40 Minute Bible Studies
• Queen Esther’s Secrets of Womanhood: A Biblical Rite of Passage for Your Daughter
• Handbook for Christian Living: Biblical Answers to Life’s Tough Questions
• Scientific Facts in the Bible: 100 Reasons to Believe the Bible Is Supernatural in Origin
• Friendship Counseling: Biblical Foundations for Helping Others
• Principles for Life: Using Biblical Principles to Bring Dynamic Psychological Healing
• Business by the Book: Complete Guide of Biblical Principles for the Workplace
• Bible Solutions to Problems of Daily Living
• The Biblical Connection to the Stars and Stripes: A Nation’s Godly Principles Embodied in Its Flag
• God’s Blueprint for Building Marital Intimacy
• Crime and Community in Biblical Perspective
• A Crown of Glory: A Biblical View of Aging
• Gardening with Biblical Plants
• Biblical Psychology
• One Blood: The Biblical Answer to Racism
• Leadership Communication: A Scriptural Perspective
• Diagrams for Living: The Bible Unveiled
• What the Bible Says about Parenting: Biblical Principles for Raising Godly Children
• God Honoring Finances: What the Bible Tells You about Managing Money
• Success in School: Building on Biblical Principles
• Christian Dress and Adornment—Biblical Perspectives
• Feeling Good about Your Feelings: How to Express Your Emotions in Harmony with Biblical Principles
• Getting the Skinny on Prosperity: Biblical Principles That Work for Everyone
• Off to Work We Go: Teaching Careers with Biblical Principles
• Incoming: Listening for God’s Messages—A Handbook for Life
• Biblical Strategies to Financial Freedom
• Revelations That Will Set You Free: The Biblical Roadmap for Spiritual and Psychological Growth
• Scripture Based Solutions for Handling Stress
• Bad Girls of the Bible and What We Can Learn from Them
• Success by Design: Ten Biblical Secrets to Help You Achieve Your God-Given Potential
• The Awesome Book of Bible Facts
• Learn the Bible in 24 Hours
• Body by God: The Owner’s Manual for Maximized Living
• Biblical Foundations for Manhood and Womanhood
• Beyond Positive Thinking: Success and Motivation in the Scriptures
• Biblical Economics: A Commonsense Guide to Our Daily Bread
• Holding Hands, Holding Hearts: Recovering a Biblical View of Christian Dating
• Politics and the Christian: A Scriptural Treatise
• Seven Secrets to Bible-Made Millionaires
• Prophecy 20/20: Profiling the Future through the Lens of Scripture
• Weather and the Bible: 100 Questions and Answers[24]
  [Implied in these titles are biblicist themes 1–10.

- Christian Smith