Edgework

It is time for evangelicals to acknowledge that “Biblicism” is an inadequate starting point for understanding the Bible. In his recent book, The Bible Made Impossible (2011), Christian Smith makes this point in his sub-title, Why Biblicism Is Not a Truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture. That is not to say that the Bible is irrelevant or unimportant for the Christian community, but it calls into question an approach to the Bible that simply doesn’t work.

Christian Smith defines “Biblicism” as “…a theory about the Bible that emphasizes together its exclusive authority, infallibility, perspicuity, self-sufficiency, internal consistency, self-evident meaning and universal applicability” (viii). He goes on to say that Biblicism is “…a constellation of related assumptions and beliefs about the Bible’s nature, purpose and function” (4). These include the following: Everything in the Bible is identical to God’s very own words. The Bible is the only mode of God’s communication with humanity and contains the totality of God’s revelation. Any reasonably intelligent person can understand the plain meaning of the biblical text if it is read in a literal, commonsensical manner. Theological formulations can be built up directly out of the Bible whose truths fit together perfectly like pieces of a puzzle and are universally applicable unless revoked by subsequent scriptural teaching.

Such affirmations lead to the idea that the Bible is “…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” (5). This point of view can be readily discerned in a sample of titles of popular Christian books, such as: Bible Answers for Almost All Your Questions, The Bible Cure for Cancer, Discover What the Bible Says about 500 Real-Life Topics, Scientific Facts in the Bible, Gardening with the Bible, Success in School: Building on Biblical Principles, A Christian View on Dating, Seven Secrets to Bible–Made Millionaires, and Weather and the Bible: 100 Questions and Answers.  Biblicists appear willing to spend a lot of money to read about what the Bible says on most any conceivable topic.

Biblicism undergirds much of evangelical piety which assumes that any sincere believer can rightly discern God’s truths during private devotions or personal quiet times. It also assumes that a biblical preacher “…can select virtually any passage of scripture and adduce from the text an authoritative, relevant, ‘applicable’ teaching to be believed and applied by the members of his or her congregation.” (12). Such suppositions are deeply rooted in much of the evangelical world. It is not my intent to destroy cherished ways of life and thought, but to reflect seriously and honestly about how the Bible can be used with integrity within the community of faith.

One of the basic problems with Biblicism is that there remains a “pervasive interpretive pluralism” within evangelicalism which simply cannot be ignored (16). That is to say that many serious Bible readers come to differing conclusions about virtually every truth taught with a supposed clarity in the biblical text. Of course it is possible to simply say that all Bible readers who don’t agree with you are misguided and probably not sincere in their quest for truth. But that is an arrogant approach to the problem, and – when  used – it  is often returned in kind. To question the integrity of persons who don’t agree with us about what the Bible teaches is an easy copout.

Robert K. Johnson makes a striking statement in his book, Evangelicals at an Impasse: Biblical Authority in Practice (1979). “To argue that the Bible is authoritative, but to be unable to come to anything like agreement on what it says (even with those who share an evangelical commitment) is self-defeating (vii-viii). He also asks a probing question: “If evangelicals cannot discover a way to move more effectively toward theological consensus, can they still maintain in good conscience their claim to biblical authority as a hallmark” (6-7)?

In an article, How Can the Bible be Authoritative?”, written for Vox Evangelica in 1991, N. T. Wright observes, “It seems to be the case that the more you insist that you are based on the Bible the more fissiparous you become; the church splits up into more and more little groups, each thinking they have got biblical truth right.”

Already in 1849, John Nevin stated in The Sect System, an article written for the Mercersburg Review, the following: “It sounds so well, to lay so much stress on the authority of the Bible, as the only text-book and guide of Christianity. But what are we to think of it, when we find such a motley mass of protesting systems, all laying claims so vigorously here to one and the same watchword? If the Bible be at once so clear and full as a formulary of Christian doctrine and practice, how does it come to pass that where men are left most free to use it this way…they are flung asunder so perpetually in their religious faith, instead of being brought together.”

What Nevin referred to back then is obvious in a cursory review of contemporary popular books outlining a variety of views on any given subject. Take for example: The Nature of Atonement: Four Views, Understanding Four  Views of Baptism, Four Views on Hell, Women in Ministry: Four Views, War: Four Christian Views, Three Views on the Rapture, The Historical Jesus: Five Views.

Such books underscore the serious problem “that on important matters the Bible apparently is not clear, consistent, and univocal enough to enable the best-intentioned, most highly skilled, believing readers to come to agreement as to what it teaches” (Smith, 25).

How can we continue to promote Biblicism as an approach to the Bible when it is clear that it is an inadequate starting point for biblical interpretation? It is time to look beyond Biblicism for good biblical interpretation.  We will pursue this quest in future essays.