The most important and thought-provoking book I’ve read this year is The Bible Made Impossible: Why Biblicism Is Not a Truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture by Christian Smith1 (available in hardback and Kindle versions). In it, the author critiques a particular way of interpreting the Bible, a method he calls “biblicism,” which he sees as widespread in the evangelical world. In fact, he argues that biblicism is so problematic that it impossible to hold to it.
So, what is biblicism? Smith defines it as “a theory about the Bible that emphasizes together its exclusive authority, infallibility, perspicuity [being clear, easily understood], self-sufficiency, internal consistency, self-evident meaning, and universal applicability.” Expanding these points, he says it is a constellation of beliefs about the Bible including these (from pages 4–5, with some rewording):
- The Bible is inspired by God and is inerrant.
- “The Bible represents all God’s communication to and will for humanity.”
- Complete coverage: God’s will about everything relevant to Christian belief and life is contained in the Bible.
- The Bible is plain and can be understood by all (“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.”
- “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.”
- We can understand the meaning of any biblical text from the Bible alone, without relying on “creeds, confessions, historical church traditions, or other forms of larger theological hermeneutical frameworks.” We can derive our entire theology from the Bible alone.
- Internal harmony: All related passages of the Bible on any given subject fit together almost like puzzle pieces into a unified, consistent teaching about right and wrong beliefs and behaviors.
- Universal applicability: What the Bible’s authors taught God’s people at any point in history remains universally valid for all time, unless explicitly revoked by subsequent scriptural teaching.
- Inductive method: We can learn all we need to know about Christian belief and practice by sitting down with the Bible and, through careful study, piecing together its clear truths.
- All the above beliefs lead to the Handbook Model: The Bible teaches doctrine and morals with every affirmation that it makes, giving us something like a handbook for Christian belief and living, a collection of divine, inerrant teachings on all kinds of subjects—including science, economics, health, politics, and romance.
I think we can make these more manageable by simplifying them into three broader beliefs about the Bible, i.e. that it is:
- Reliable and consistent: The Bible is inspired by God, without error, and therefore speaks with a single voice on any subject. (1, 7)
- Sufficient: The Bible contains all we need to know about all areas of Christian belief and practice for all time. (2, 3, 6, 8)
- Understandable: Given some common sense about how to read, and maybe some background on the Bible, we can with careful and prayerful study come to a true understanding of a Bible passage including its meaning for faith and action. Then we can take the truths we learn about different topics, sort and sift them, and come to a comprehensive understanding of any and every topic. (4, 5, 9)
This all sounds rather ordinary in my neck of the evangelical woods. Of course, a bit of tweaking is needed: we understand that not every part of Scripture is as clear as every other part; we need to take into account symbolism, parables, poetry etc.; and we know that even sincere Christians may disagree on some minor points. Overall, though, these three summary points probably seem for many of us to represent our beliefs fairly well.
What do you think? Does biblicism in Smith’s terms reflect your understanding of how to interpret the Bible and use it to determine what we believe and how we act? Any parts you don’t agree with? (No fair reading the book before you answer!) In the next post, we’ll consider the major problem Smith sees with biblicism.
1 Christian Smith is the William R. Kenan, Jr. Professor of Sociology and Director of the Center for the Study of Religion and Society, and the Center for Social Research at the University of Notre Dame. He is the author of many books, including What is a Person?: Rethinking Humanity, Social Life, and the Moral Good from the Person Up (Chicago 201); Passing the Plate: Why American Christians Do Not Give Away More Money (OUP 2008); Soul Searching: the Religious and Spiritual Lives of American Teenagers (OUP 2005), Winner of the 2005 "Distinguished Book Award" from Christianity Today; and Moral, Believing Animals: Human Personhood and Culture (OUP 2003).
I often tell the people at First Pres in Coalinga that there are tensions in Scripture - places where we read one thing and then in another read something different. Certainly the role of women in the early church would be such a subject. Why would Paul have advocated for women to be silent in church in 1 Corinthians and yet celebrate and uphold women in leadership (Phoebe, Priscilla, Junia)? Of course, my understanding of Biblical study allows me to take into consideration the history and culture at the time the book/letter was written.
ReplyDeleteNext thought: The Bible is definitely NOT a rule book. It is first of all the story of God revealing himself to humanity. Because God is God - we will never totally grasp who he is. We can only embrace who he has revealed of himself and that is not the sum total of who he is! Our God cannot be contained within the pages of a book! Yes, there is great wisdom and direction for life in God's word but it can be rightly discerned only through a relationship with this living, revealing God, who is continuing to reveal himself to us through the Holy Spirit.
ReplyDeleteThanks for calling attention to what looks like a very worthwhile book! From my perspective, "biblicism" can (1) set up barriers to understanding rather than open doors, and (2) too often contribute to "Christian" attitudes and actions that seem contrary to Jesus' teachings and example.
ReplyDeleteNeedless to say, my own limited approach to the Bible differs. Just to note two points, I try to consider (1) the context of a passage within the Bible as well as within space and time, and (2) the complexities and limitations of the art and science of translation.
Since I have yet to read the book, I'll look forward to your next post!
Thanks, Mary & Jim. Good points about context and translation, Jim, though I don't think those are neglected by the thinking Smith calls biblicist.
ReplyDeleteWhen fellow Christians claim Mormons are not Christian, it's nearly always because we reject the creeds, not the Bible itself. So I don't think this is a fair agreement on what constitutes Christianity for Evangelicals on that score: many view the creeds as absolutely essential.
ReplyDeleteFrom the Latter-day Saint perspective, we would find some sentiments to agree with in many of the statements, yet I find myself thinking "Well, kind of yes, but ..." for most of them. The Bible is God's word, but was manipulated before we got it in its present form; God's truths are eternal, but practice changes; the Bible is a good guide for our lives, but we need ongoing revelation to know God's will for our day, both personal and global; other scriptural commentary (from prophets, not theologians) helps us come to a more complete understanding of the truths in the Bible, etc.
I am no theologian or Bible scholar, but my understanding of the Bible echoes the comments here. Like Derrill, I find myself saying, "Sort of, but..." Then again, as my husband points out, my understanding of the Bible looks with hindsight on all the past interpretations that have gone before and have been thrown out. I am no literalist by any means but still believe the Bible is the Word of God and our primary source of how to love and worship God--coupled with the constant work of the Holy Spirit. I'm very eager to read your next post, since I would be hopelessly lost if I tried to read the book itself! :)
ReplyDeleteSaralynn's mention of the Holy Spirit is the vital point. Understand the Bible with the human mind and you can only get error; understand the Bible at interpreted by the Holy Spirit and you can only get truth.
ReplyDeleteMark Noll's "The Civil War as a Theological Crisis" shows how Christians interpreted the Bible to support slavery and to support anti-slavery. Thanks Mike for bringing my attention to this book. It also makes me think of Scott McKnight's book, "The Blue Parakeet: Rethinking How You Read the Bible" is also consistent with this book. Bill Roundy
ReplyDeleteYes, Bill, Barb and I are actually reading "The Blue Parakeet" and it was on Scot McKnight's blog Jesus Creed that I learned about "The Bible Made Impossible." There is a series of eight good blog articles there about it, with lots of comments, starting at The Problem with Biblicism.
ReplyDeleteSo, David Brown, there are some people who have the right understandings of all these issues because they have the interpretation of the Holy Spirit, while everyone else has the understanding of the human mind?
ReplyDeleteYou asked, "What do you think? Does biblicism in Smith’s terms reflect your understanding of how to interpret the Bible and use it to determine what we believe and how we act? Any parts you don’t agree with?"
ReplyDeleteMany parts:
1. “The Bible represents all God’s communication to and will for humanity.”
It is not “all” God’s communication, for the Bible itself indicates otherwise. For example, "The heavens declare the glory of God, the skies proclaim the work of his hands" Psalm 19:1. Similarly, "For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made ..." Romans 1:20.
Beyond this, since we only understand the Bible, and even the words of the Bible, through reason, in some respects reason must be a way that God communicates. Our shared human awareness of right and wrong, and of (in the non-moral sense) good and evil, are also ways that God communicates to us.
2. "Complete coverage: God’s will about everything relevant to Christian belief and life is contained in the Bible."
Again, apart from our natural reason and sensibilities, which is the means by which Christian teachers have interpreted the Bible through all of history, we would have had no Christian teachers or theologians, or sermons or translations of the Bible into our native language. To extend this claim to "everything relevant” to Christian belief and life seems intentionally broad and vague, mere hyperbole, if not a mere caricature.
3. “Any reasonably intelligent person can read the Bible in his or her own language and correctly understand the plain meaning of the text.”
Most Christians I know will acknowledge there are some portions of the Bible they do not understand, but many passages that they do understand. Still, we can justly criticize ourselves for adopting superficial understandings of the text.
On the other hand, there is no reasonable doubt that -- just as for any religious or other kind of text-- including this blog -- we really do know some of what it means. Language is normally comprehensible, at least in part. The Biblical authors would not have bothered to write if they really thought they could not be understood by those who sought the meaning.
Anyone who has studied long passages of Scripture will be aware that understanding of many things comes only with time; if it was always so easy, there would be no sermons or commentaries in the church. So the quoted statement above has an element of hyperbole.