Customer Reviews

The Bible Made Impossible: Why Biblicism Is Not a Truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture

5 star:		(14)
4 star:		(8)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

For some time now, I have been aware of the interpretive quagmire that exists in the Protestant world, but I have been unable to construct a model that fully explains it. Christian Smith's book has done that for me. I limit my remarks to the Protestant world, because it is that world that proclaims the principle of sola scriptura yet cannot find common agreement. (The Catholics and Orthodox have their own set of problems to deal with.)

I was once satisfied with the Evangelical mantra so often used to excuse the diversity of Biblical interpretation - "In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things charity," but then, that was when I thought as a child. Smith has clearly debunked that common rationalization by carefully analyzing the axioms of Biblicism and finding them to be wanting as illustrated by the widespread interpretive diversity we find among Evangelicals even in the essentials.

It is his view that Evangelicals have to come to terms with the Biblicist model of the scriptures because that model can't deliver what it is supposed to be able to deliver. However, the fact that it can't deliver unity of understanding is not actually Smith's primary objection. His real objection is to the tenets of Biblicism that suggest that the Bible is so plain, uncomplicated, cohesive, and internally consistent that it SHOULD produce a consensus of meaning. He presents the challenge in this way: "If the Bible is given by a truthful and omnipotent God as an internally consistent and perspicuous text precisely for the purpose of revealing to humans correct beliefs, practices, and morals, then why is it that the presumably sincere Christians to whom it has been given cannot read it and come to common agreement about what it teaches?"

This is a valid question which, as Smith documents, has been raised by others as well, but has been swept under the carpet, ignored, or rationalized for a long time. Smith is convinced that it is high time for Evangelicals to confront the discrepancies of their Biblicist view of scripture. He does not promise, however, that a different view will remove interpretive pluralism. In fact, he suggests that we might just have to live with it, get used to some ambiguity, and stop pressing for harmonization in every detail. He offers the concept of accommodation (God's condescension to man) and a Christocentric approach to scripture as potential ways out of the conundrum.

Unless one takes the "dictation" approach to scripture, one must agree that the "very word of God" is packaged in a container of the "very word of man." If we recognize that God's revelation to man is limited by the nature of the finite beings he is dealing with, then we can understand that God's "perfect revelation" to man is framed by the intricacies of language, the complexities of culture, and the limits of finitude in understanding the infinite. In fact, these things are so limiting that God eventually "had to" represent himself in human form in order to be fully understood. Even so, "He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not." Not even the disciples "got it" much of the time.

This focal point, the Incarnate (W)ord, as testified to in the written (w)ord, Smith insists, is the only focus that makes sense and is actually perspicuous as the central theme of the Bible - that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself. Instead of reading the Bible from the beginning, the reading of the Bible must happen from its central point, outward, toward its edges. We are to look for "Jesus reconciling the world unto God" in every page, even those that seem completely unrelated, but we are not to press to find him there if the text seems obscure. Where we cannot harmonize passages of scripture, we let them be. This is a fundamental departure from Biblicism because it does not insist that we find meaning where there is ambiguity or apparent contradiction.

Finally, Smith contends that the revelation of God may be complete, but our understanding of that revelation is not. The Bible is inspired and authoritative, but that does not remove the interpretive task that lies before each generation of believers. Indeed, each individual believer is faced with the challenge of mapping his own understanding of what the gospel means under the direction of the Holy Spirit. The gospel is dynamic and life-changing not just once, but every day of a believer's life. It is the pursuit of Christ that Smith calls us to in both our reading of the scriptures and in our everyday lives.

Christian Smith has ably identified the elephant in the room. Now, the question is, "What are we Evangelicals going to do about it?" We can pretend that it isn't there. We can notice it, and then ignore it. Or, we can realize that the elephant could overturn the hors d'oeuvre table and wreak havoc in the room. Together, we might be able to figure out a way to remove it. I say, let's try to figure out how to remove it from the room. Christian Smith has given us the first step - recognizing that it is, indeed, a very big elephant.

I could not put this book down. And after reading it through the first time, I brought it with me to the pool the next day and read it again! While affirming Scripture's inspiration and authority, Smith says out loud what any number of Evangelical readers of Scripture have been wondering about and puzzling over for a long time: if Scripture is so clear, so sufficient, etc., then why are we divided into so many denominations? And, perhaps more troubling still, why are we so increasingly unconcerned with our lack of real unity on any number of important theological issues? His description of our substantive disunity here is overwhelming. If you have not heard of the concept of "pervasive interpretive pluralism", get ready, you will in the future. Smith's charitable, well-argued, thoroughly researched book challenges readers of Scripture finally to admit that there is a difference between the truth of Scripture and their opinions about it. Adding a sociological dimension to the argument, he shows why so many are so reluctant to do this. In the end, having shown how nonsensical it is to consider the Bible as simply some divinely authorized how-to manual or rule book for this or for that (e.g., parenting, dating, finances, dieting, leadership, end-times, etc.--you should see the list!), his final chapters begin to create a sound framework for a purely Christological reading of Scripture (with a nod to Barth and others). Such a framework, he demonstrates convincingly, would in fact bring readers closer to a truly Evangelical reading of Scripture, while it would also prepare them to consider every aspect of life in light of Christ, his person and work. I will absolutely refer to this book again and will assign it in appropriate courses in the future.
Steven A. Hunt

In this book, Christian Smith does a great job presenting the problems of Biblicism, and making a few suggestions for how we can correct these problems, and begin reading Scripture in a better light.

In Part 1, Smith spends four chapters talking about the problems of "biblicism." Biblicism consists of the constellation of beliefs and practices surrounding the way most Christians in the United States view and use the Bible. Among other concepts, biblicism contains the ideas of the Bible as the inspired Word of God, the inerrancy of Scripture, the ability of anyone to read and understand Scripture, the inductive method of Bible study to find the universal truth within Scripture, and above all, the idea that the Bible contains all the truth we need for Christian belief and practice.

Christian Smith shows convincingly that the goals and claims of biblicism have not worked, and so it is an impossible way of viewing and reading Scripture. It has great ideas and goals, but it just doesn't work.

His primary evidence for this is the wide diversity in opinions on all theological and practical matters among those who hold to biblicism. The claim is often made that we agree on the major issues, and only disagree on the minor. But this is demonstrably false, as Christian Smith shows. There is almost no agreement on any single issue.

The goals of biblicism have failed, and so biblicism as a way of approaching Scripture is false.

In Part 2, Christians Smith goes on to provide three suggestions for helping us view, read, and study the Bible in a way that allows for the complexity of Scripture while maintaining its authoritative role in our lives.

Two of his best points was that we must read everything in Scripture as pointing to Jesus Christ, that the complexity and ambiguity of Scripture must be accepted and embraced. About both of these points, Smith writes that "All Scripture is not clear, not does it need to be. But the real matter of Scripture is clear... that God in Christ has come to earth, lived, taught, healed, died, and risen to new life, so that we too can rise to life in him. On that, the Bible is clear" (p. 132).

I believe that in time, this will become the prominent view of Scripture. It is becoming increasingly obvious to more and more people that the way we have viewed and used Scripture for the past 500 years is severely deficient. But what Scripture does provide, it provides amazingly well, if we can learn to read it properly.

Scripture is not clear on how we continue the work of Jesus in our life, or what it will look like, but that is where the ambiguity, flexibility, freedom, and creativity of Scripture come in.

If you want to be challenged about how you read the Bible, and how to use it, I highly recommend "The Bible Made Impossible."

There are many books that I would get everyone I know to read if I could. This is not one of them. I do not want to be heard wrong, but there are many that will not get this book and will be left worse off for reading it.

Christian Smith has a provocative thesis. Essentially he says that in the attempt to hold scripture against the modernists, many Evangelicals have become "Biblicists" and have placed on the bible a role that Smith believes is inappropriate. Some biblicists have replaced the Holy Spirit with the Bible as the third member of the trinity. Some Biblicists use the bible as a rule book or instruction guide and attempt to force a single view of theology on it. Others try to reconcile all of the issues within scripture and create a bible that was written primarily for the 21st century understanding of history, science and theology.

He summarizes the problem as Pervasive Interpretive Pluralism. As Christians if we believe that scripture is God's word (dictated by God) then we should have a single interpretive framework and it should be easier for us to agree what the Bible actually says. Smith says that is clear that we do not have that, so instead we have Christians creating frameworks and then pushing the evidence of scripture into a particular framework. His best illustration of this of a bunch of puzzle pieces without a picture. Many people make many different pictures out of the pieces, but no system uses all of the pieces or creates a whole picture without damaging some of the pieces.

Overall I agree with many of the complaints that Smith has. But I believe that he is needlessly antagonistic toward many that would benefit from reading this book. The tone of the first half is fairly harsh and while I understand why it is harsh (he seems to have been hurt and somewhat persecuted because he is trying to push through and find a real understanding of scripture that fits with the evidence that he finds in scripture), I still think that if he had a co-writter or editor that had helped tone down that rhetoric a bit, it would have been a better book. I believe that there are enough intellectually honest Evangelicals that a presentation of the evidence really would be enough to convict many.

The second half of the book is Smith's attempt at solving the problem. 1) Smith says we just need to get over the fact that there seems to be contradictory points in scripture. He encourages us to view scripture progressively. In the example of slavery, scripture does not condemn slavery, but does move in the direction of increasing human rights and pushes the cultural boundaries of the times when scripture was being written. So over time, most Christians have come to believe that scripture really does lead us to condemn slavery, even if the condemnation is not expliciet within the pages of scripture.

2) Smith believes that scripture should be read Christologically. The way we should understand all of scripture is by looking at it through the lens of Christ's incarnation. Scripture is the story of God's creation, the fall of humanity, God's choosing and work through Israel, Christ's incarnation, death and resurrection and God's work in the church and the hint of Christ's future work of his second coming and the recreation of Earth under Christ's future reign. (This is very similar to the way NT Wright says we should understand scripture.) Smith believes that looking at scripture Christologically will diminish (but not eliminate) many of the minor issues that are debated among Christians.

3) His third point is that we need to read scripture in community. For Smith this means converting to Catholicism to maintain a interpretive framework around scripture to prevent errant readings. The vast majority of Evangelical readers will not do this (and he really does not talk about it here, but this is what Smith has done.) I wish he had written a bit more about this third suggestion. In general, I agree with it, but the problem I see is that some will chose church community options that allow them to reject the teaching of scripture that they find inappropriate or difficult. So Southern Baptist Churches broke away from Northern Baptist churches because of a different of understanding about slavery. Lutherans and Presbyterians have a different understanding of the sacraments. The result of a greater lay reading of scripture is that we have at least 35,000 different denominations now. But I still think that he point is basically right, even if it is not specific enough.

There are several other suggestions that I think are useful but less important (deciding what beliefs are more important, get comfortable with mystery, stop looking for all information within scripture and allow for more understanding of general revelation, etc.)

On the whole, I really think that Smith make some good points about how we inappropriately use the bible. My problem with the book is that he is better at tearing down the inappropriate use of scripture than building up the appropriate use of scripture. (I think that is just part of the problem. It is harder to do it right than it is do complain about others doing it wrong.) I also am a bit concerned about the tone, but others that I have read this with were less concerned about the tone. So maybe it is my problem more than the books problem.

I have read this after reading a number of other books on scripture recently. If I had not read Walton's Lost World of Genesis One, Peter Enn's Inspiration and Incarnation, Wright's Scripture and the Authority of God and The Challenge of Jesus, and others I do not believe I would have been ready to read and receive the message of this book.

Originally published on my blog Bookwi.se

Dr. 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." He then gives ten assumptions or beliefs that commonly characterize the general biblicist outlook. This is followed by examples of biblicism in slogans and "Bible Answers for . . . " books. The first four chapters (87 pages) define and present evidence for "the Bible made impossible." The next three chapters and short conclusion (86 pages) offer suggestions for improving the situation.

Dr. Smith then introduces the problem of pervasive interpretive pluralism, wherein the Bible "says and teaches very different things about most significant topics." He then gives numerous examples: (1) the three, four and five views book series, (2) the two, three, or four alternative, Bible-based, evangelical views on each of 18 theological concerns that are each briefly discussed in Gregory Boyd & Paul Eddy's book "Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology," including inerrancy, providence, divine foreknowledge, Genesis, the image of God, salvation, sanctification, eternal security, the Lord's Supper, baptism, women in ministry, the millennium, hell, etc., (3) brief discussions in this book on pluralism in church polity, free will and predestination, the Fourth Commandment, the morality of slavery, gender differences and equality, wealth and poverty, war and nonviolence, charismatic gifts, atonement and justification, and God-honoring worship, (4) irreducible multivocal, polysemic (multiple meanings) and multivalent (many appeals or values) texts, (5) blatantly ignored teachings (four examples), (5) arbitrary determination of cultural relativism, and (6) strange passages.

Although "[t]he primary purpose of the present book is to point out what appears to be a serious problem with Biblicism, not to elaborate complete solutions to that problem," Dr. Smith concludes that "there must be a better way to understand and read the Bible."

In the second half of his book, Dr. Smith describes and discusses "a number of proposals for overcoming American evangelical biblicism," including (1) read Scripture Christocentrically, i.e., read everything in Scripture in relation to Jesus Christ, (2) keep in mind that not every belief is equally important, (3) consider the possibility that diversity of belief is okay, (4) learn to better distinguish between dogmas, doctrines, and opinions, (5) consider the possibility that God deals with us on a "need to know" basis, (6) don't insist on the Bible giving clear and complete information on every topic, (7) don't look at the Bible as a how-to handbook for living a Christian life ("deemphasizing of Bible passages as collections of complete and final teachings on every subject imaginable" ), (7) get more comfortable with "mystery" (there may be some things we will never know this side of heaven), (8) distinguish between what philosophers call locutionary, illocutionary and perlocutionary acts, and (9) consider the possibility of progressive revelation, suggesting that we would all be better off today if Christians realized that doctrine developed and changed over time from the beginning of Christianity. This approach is described in a three-page footnote because Dr. Smith did not want to actively suggest it in the text.

Dr. Smith's conclusion is that biblicism is impossible and is intellectually and practically bankrupt. As a Christian layman with an interest in the subject of biblical inerrancy, I found Dr. Smith's book to be very thought-provoking. Despite some of the negative reviews in the blogosphere, I recommend this book for any Christian who has an interest in or concern about the subject of biblical inerrancy, regardless of whether or not you end up agreeing with Christian Smith's views. The book includes 32 pages of footnotes and an eight page index.

After getting bored during the first 2 chapters because of the hammering away at the core critique of biblicism (pervasive interpretive pluralism), I hit the "I can't put the book down" section. I agree with many of the previous reviews with regards to how the author identifies and explains the problem with the biblicist (as he defines it) reading of scripture. However, what I would emphasize about the book is the argument that a Christocentric interpretation is part of the solution to the difficulties. In his endeavor to modify the evangelical biblicist he understates what a seismic shift this would be. He does, however, illustrate the results of the shift in a very positive light.

The strength of the book is that Smith is not attacking evangelical thought in general. He is attacking a specific element of some evangelical thought - and he is quoting primarily evangelical theologians to do so. In this way, he provides grounds for productive conversation between evangelicals and the rest of Christianity.

The greatest gift of protestantism in general and evangelicalism in particular to the world church has been its insistence on the centrality of scripture for Christian faith. But what would it mean for this insistence to go too far and itself take a form that is corrosive of that very faith? Smith suggests that the time has come to ask this question in earnest, and takes the glut of "what the bible says about..." books as one of several indicators that there is a significant problem afoot. Do evangelicals who take the Bible seriously really want to be the ones churning out books on "The Daniel Diet Plan" or "What the Bible says the Christian Businessman should Pray while Driving to Work"? Smith is right to suggest that contemporary evangelicals ought first to notice, and then take the widespread acceptability of such reasoning, as an invitation to revisit the role scripture actually plays in Christian faith.

This book does not present a fully worked out alternative to these problems, nor does it aim to. What it does do is offer a clear and succinct account of where the problem lies. Unlike so many books of this type, Smith's aim is not to destroy Christians' faith in scripture, but to push it to a higher level. His hints about the way forward are also theologically astute. It is very readable, accessible to laypeople, and one of the very best introductions to these crucial issues on the market.

Finally a book that takes notice of the domestication of the Scriptures through the practice of biblicism. Smith takes aim at us Evangelicals and how our so-called "high view" of Scripture (we actually read the book instead of it sitting on the shelf next to the old set of encyclopedias) has resulted in reducing the Bible into the clear, direct, authoritative and uncomplicated means by which the divine will is mediated. The problem is that we can't seem to agree what that divine will always is. Just one visit to a Christian book store will demonstrate this conundrum as there is no end to books on Christian dating, parenting, voting, business, education, etc., as well as a multitude of books that are titled along the lines of "Four Views on Essential Doctrines that Amazingly We Cannot Agree Upon." As Smith conclusively demonstrates, we've made the Bible into something that it simply cannot be. The idea of Scriptures as the clear, direct, authoritative and uncomplicated divine will is continually confronted and undermined by the landscape of "pervasive interpretive pluralism." Who will rescue us from this body of never-ending opinions? Thanks be to Smith as in the latter half of his book he lays the framework for a truly evangelical approach to Scripture, one that has Jesus Christ as "the purpose, center and interpretive key." Hmmmm. Jesus Christ as the mediator of the divine will in this world, in our lives, and in the book that bears witness to him--sometimes the obvious is strangely new and fresh! Smith shows our taming of the Bible needs to be wonderfully undone by a Christocentric hermeneutic and then good news can roar when we read it. Let us not settle for anything less.

Author Christian Smith asserts that a prominent method of biblical interpretation and application among mainstream American evangelicals is misplaced, unwarranted by scripture itself, and harmful. This 'biblicism' is detailed in many ways and found 'impossible' and 'flat wrong'. Over the course of the book, it becomes evident that the 'biblicism' assailed is not that of careful, thoughtful scholarship and reflection, but the 'careless', 'speculative', 'simplistic', and 'flat' reading common among contemporary evangelicals. Unfortunately the book will not likely impact its intended audience as the careless and simplistic will lose interest in this scholarly work. Only the careful and thoughtful will read on to the end. These will likely be frustrated, as I was, as Smith swings away at 'biblicism' - a biblicism that by the end of the book is a mere caricature of mature, prudent biblical interpretation and application.

To his credit, Smith urges evangelicals not to discard the Bible or to treat it like other classic human literature. He clearly believes the Bible is divinely inspired and leads to God. He openly warns against a liberalism that prefers the wisdom of man over the word of God. Rather, he suggests a different approach to Bible reading and application that he is convinced is more honoring to Christ and more helpful to the world. Many of his suggestions are indeed necessary for a proper understanding of the Bible, but again the careful, serious, prudent student of the Bible will likely already be practicing these. Most unfortunately and unnecessarily, in showing the wisdom of a richer way of reading and applying scripture, Smith indicts not only biblicism, but the scripture itself. Some of the judgments rendered against the Bible are: error, possibly containing fable, and containing many passages God never intended to apply across time and cultures.

He suggests readers hold tenaciously to the clear 'dogma' of the scripture - concepts included in basic church creeds. All other conclusions should be held tentatively. Widely held systematic views such Calvinism, Wesleyan theology, and Pentecostalism he deems 'doctrines' while all other biblical understandings rise only to the level of 'opinion'. Those that love the Word of God and accept God's invitation to 'meditate upon it day and night' will be dismayed to learn that the highest level of certainty they can reach regarding the vast majority of biblical content is mere opinion. By his own standard Smith's critique of biblicism and his recommended alternatives can only be his opinion, as it's not found in church creeds or historical doctrines. Yet he emphatically insists that continuing in 'biblicism' is 'flat wrong' and 'impossible'.

In summary, while the book's cautions against a flat and simplistic biblical understanding are needed and his suggestions are helpful, I fear the book will not reach many in his intended audience. Rather, it will provide ample though dubious ammunition to those already assailing the permanence and perfection of the Bible - a permanence and perfection that God Himself professes over and over within scripture. And God's 'opinion' that 'the grass withers and the flower fades, but the Word of the Lord stands forever' is 'impossible' to refute.

NOTE: This is just a summary review. My extensive review is at:
[...]

This is an outstanding book, in which Christian Smith challenges "Biblicism" -- a constellation of common evangelical assumptions about the Bible. It's written to challenge those who approach the Bible as a inerrant handbook on all walks of life (science, economics, health, politics, romance, whatever). The author argues, quite convincingly, that the Biblicist outlook (including "exclusive authority, infallibility, perspicuity, self-sufficiency, internal consistency, self-evident meaning, and universal applicability") 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". And for it to appear to work, evangelicals must engage in "various forms of textual selectivity, denial, and contortion -- which actually end up violating Biblicist intentions".

Asking what is the Biblical view is on, say dating, indicates that the main point of the scriptures has been missed, and that the text is being forced into a form other than it was intended to be. Smith writes that the logic of Biblicism "tends to encourage Bible reads to search the scriptures to find whatever shreds of evidence and tidbits of possibly relevant information might be pieced together to come up with 'biblical' answers to their questions and problems. Then when others disagree, pervasive interpretive pluralism is born. In short, the church suffers from pervasive interpretive pluralism in part because too many people insist on the Bible giving clear and complete information, answers, and directions, which the Bible simply does not give". Smith goes on to identify how this causes most of the organizational and identify fragmentation in the modern church, as well as the common paradigm-protecting practices used to guard these sets of divisive beliefs.

Smith considers himself a conservative Christian, and when accused of liberal theology, he writes "Slapping the 'liberal!' label on others is still a knee-jerk reaction of many evangelicals against any argument that one 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". While he steers clear of the inerrancy debate for the most part, he does hint at the complexity behind such a view, saying that any such defense of inerrancy dies the "death of a thousand qualifications".