The Bible Made Impossible December 31, 2011
Posted by bdennert in Books, Ministry, Theology and Ministry.trackback
In The Bible Made Impossible: Why Biblicism is Not a Truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture (published in 2011 by Brazos Press), the sociologist Christian Smith makes the claim that the “biblicist” view of the Bible present in much of American Evangelicalism is an untenable and impossible possible to hold and therefore should be rejected in view of a better approach (as stated in the opening paragraph of the book, p. vii). The first half is an attempt to describe and show the problems of the “biblicist” position, in large part tied to the “pervasive interpretative pluralism,” with the second half of the book being about what would “a truly Evangelical reading of Scripture.” Thus, with this book Smith (a professor at Notre Dame) seems to move a bit from descriptive work contained in his studies on e.g., spirituality in youth, to a more desconstructive/constructive piece, particularly with the second half of the book. Smith acknowledges he may seem like an unlikely person to write about biblical interpretation but seeks to show that he feels like he should precisely because he is not a pastor or a theologian or a teacher at a seminary–he can speak honestly and openly without fear of censure. While in some ways Smith is making some new points or at least in new ways, on the whole his book is indebted to the works of Peter Enns and Kenton Sparks, though also influenced by the likes of William Webb and Kevin Vanhoozer (whom he cites at points and at other points follows similar ideas), particularly in the alternative approach offered in the second half of the book.
As I noted, the first half of the book presents the problem with biblicism and the part of the book I found more influential/fascintating/original in light of Smith’s training as a sociologist; I think he is applying his work as a sociologist to evangelicals, observing what he sees. Smith defines “biblicism” according to 10 criteria, which could be summarized as seeing the Bible as the complete, coherent handbook to life which can be interpreted by all through common-sense, inductive study of the Bible alone (see his description on pp. 4-5). The position leads to books on the “biblical” answer to all sorts of issues: diet, dating, money, politics, etc. The problem is that different people come up with different positions on “the” biblical perspective, both in regard to these as well as other issues such as “charistmatic gifts” and “women in ministry” (see X# Views books); there is a “pervasive interpretive pluralism” that seems to show that the biblicist theory does not work out in practice. He notes potential responses to his critique of biblicism and finds them all undercutting the biblicist position (assuming Smith’s description of biblicism is correct). On the whole, Smith finds the “biblicist” concept to be derived not from the Bible but from certain philosophical and historical influences, as well as sociolgoical explanations. Smith claims that Christians understate the significance and variation on these issues, ignoring the problem they present for their theory. Above all, they fail to note the polysemy and multivocal nature of the biblical text; there are multiple meanings possible in the text rather than just one meaning, as evident from the different perspectives that have arisen even within evangelical camps (not just outside of it!) and the way that people make different points and applications with the same text.
I think his analysis and critique is perceptive and accurate of some pockets of Evangelicalism; in my own theological training, I saw the approach he described but not in all of Evangelicalism (according to people’s own labels). As he noted, the move to “theological interpretation of Scripture” and discussion of moving “beyond the Bible” in theology and practice (as opposed to simple replication) within evangelical camps shows that there is movement away from the phenmeona observed by Smith (see Vanhoozer, now back at a flagship “Evangelical” school). Most of these writers don’t make claims as provocative as Smith does, perhaps presenting their positions as a further (and faithful) development rather than an alternative to an impossible position.
As I read the book, I wondered if I am in the “biblicist” camp (Smith does make some references to the PCA, but calls it Presbyterian Church of [not in!] America in a couple of places so I wasn’t sure if he was talking about us!). Probably yes and no–I agree with the need for Christocentric readings, recognize the inherent nature of literature (particular certain types of literature, including some of the genres in the Bible, e.g. narratives) to offer multiple interpreations, and the fact that there is a “progress” of revelation in the Bible. The Bible is not a handbook for living; it is more than that (a point made by Paul Tripp and Tim Lane in How People Change, a book with some connections to Westminster Theological Seminary, which Smith seems to place in the “biblicist” camp). However, I also see that the Bible does offer a coherent worldview ; it does not address everything in a one-to-one relationship but does offer insight and address the concerns of human living in all ages and points in history; some parts of the Bible offer more abstract principles (e.g. Proverbs) while others apply these principles to historical circumstances (e.g. epistles), which should give us ideas for application today. Furthermore, I believe that the weekly sermon should apply the overarching Biblical story to our everyday lives. As I read Smith, I wondered if adopting his ideas would lead to a failure to address real-life issues, which would be another type of failure. What would weekly preaching with Smith’s approach look like? What would it mean for broader church life? Perhaps because he is not a pastor or training pastors, he does not consider these implications.
Smith notes in the introduciton that he has joined the Catholic Church, following along the same “road to Rome” that other Protestants have recently travelled upon. While acknowledging this, Smith does not make the claim that this is the only solution to the problem he sees. In many ways, the problems that Smith identifies I also found problematic in life experience and are what led me to the Reformed tradition and to a particular way to approach preaching and ministry, an approach I learned through the likes of Kevin Vanhoozer at Trinity and Tim Keller and other Reformed preachers influenced by biblical theology and Christocentric readings, as well as the embrace of tradition and creeds (not being nuda or solo Scriptura as Smith describes biblicists). Perhaps the Bible has not been made impossible throughout Evangelicalism.
Hey Brian, thanks for reviewing Smith’s text; I havn’t read it yet and now I think I should. But please indulge me to comment here because bibliology/hermeneutics is a topic that I have paid considerable attention to throughout my theological education.If I am reading you correctly (and it could be merely the meaning I am creating from your text!), you are granting legitimacy to many if not all of Smith’s critiques (esp. the “pervasive interpretive pluralism” point) of “biblicism” in American Evangelicalism. You quibble only with the scope and application of these criticisms; as not representing all corners of this very large Christian tradition in the United States. Though, you state: “Above all, they fail to note the polysemy and multivocal nature of the biblical text; there are multiple meanings possible in the text rather than just one meaning…” You go on to expound about how the Bible presents a “coherent worldview [note, singular NOT plural]” and offers “insight” into the life of and “principles” for the Christian in the world today.
Now, I have to say that I was enamored of this perspective too when I read Richard B. Hays’ THE MORAL VISION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT while I was at Cedarville. In addressing the [apparent] contradictions in the Biblical witness, Hays made recourse to the polyvocality idea that seemed to make so much sense to me as an undergraduate studying the Bible. I believed (contra the univocality of Scripture that we learned in Couser’s Hermeneutics class) that one couldn’t have their cake and eat it too – one cannot hold to the doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture while at the same time writing volumes and reams and reams of Biblical commentary on the profusion of “tensions” that exist between testaments, in recounting “historical” events (i.e. Jesus’ resurrection), and even within the corpus of a particular author’s contributions to the Bible (i.e. Paul on women in the church). And the so-called principle of the “analogy of Scripture” from the Reformation did nothing to settle me as I saw glaring contradictions in the Bible as well as radically different interpretations of it throughout history.
So, first let me say that I have long-abandoned the concern for uni/polyvocality of the Bible. Of course the Bible is a polyvocal work because there were according to tradition 40+ human authors of the Holy Writ (which should probably be revised upward considerably) and numerous redactors (not to mention the uncountable scribal alterations to the text – see Bart Ehrman on this point).
I have evolved to understand that (and now I will borrow heavily for Dale Martin’s SEX AND THE SINGLE SAVIOR: GENDER AND SEXUALITY IN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION) texts do not interpret themselves – hence, the myth of textual agency. Human beings, rather, with their agency create meaning with texts. Whether preachers and laity alike interpreted Scripture to support slavery; to oppress women; to fight unjust wars; to sanction killing; to encourage anti-Semitism, homophobia, patriarchy, racism, etc.; to promote suspicion and discrimination against the “other;” and the like, they were doing so with their own agency. There is a certain ethic to the interpretation of the Bible, and by locating the responsibility for “meaning” in the text or authorial intent, one is unwittingly absolving the interpreter of responsibility for the ethics of interpretation. As Martin maintains: “As long as the text itself is thought to provide its own interpretation or to constrain or direct its own meaning, the ethical and political responsibility of interpreters can be masked, denied, or slighted. Immoral interpretations can be – and have been – blamed on the text rather than the interpreter.” Martin calls this not “biblicism” or “fundamentalism,” but the “sin of Christian textual foundationalism.” Because the text does not interpret itself, we are the ones that bear that responsibility. And with the fraught process by which we come to read our Bibles – the unreliability of human communication, textual transmission, 2-3,000 years between the horizon of the text and our own, translation as an act of interpretation, and the inherent difficulties of translation itself – it is no wonder that we have such a multiplicity and discordant array of views about “what the Bible says” about anything.
Any honest look at the history of interpretation of the Bible will reveal that we do not merely have the reality of the issue of polyvocality of the text, as you assert, but the infinitude of meaning-making. Look to any time period in any given part of our beautiful Earth and you will find “absolute” interpretations about any verse or any issue. The gamut of interpretations and views are as varied and numerous as the number of people interpreting the Bible! There is no one Biblical worldview – there are many! There are no definitive norming insights or principles “in the text” for our lives – there are an endless number! Whether we like it or not, the text cannot interpret itself and, therefore, we are left to do the dirty work (and by dirty I mean that it is a labor of love – fun even!). Any “Christocentric,” “theological,” “feminist,” “queer” or other readings of the Bible are some among many ways that we can read Scripture, due to the imperspicuous nature of the text. We can debate the value of each approach or others, but each approach is ineluctably a version of reader-response. Instead of fearing this hermeneutic, we must embrace it as the only realistic explanation of what happens when human beings dive into the art that is textual interpretation. We are not left in an “absolute interpretive anarchy,” as some would fear, but are directed to interpret according to certain controls (that may or may not be reliable): a religious community (Hans Frei), a community of readers (George Lindbeck), “modern consciousness… the contingency socialization of the reader… and other people and institutions” (Dale Martin).
In the end, the interpreter alone has agency in interpretation and we are ethically responsible for every interpretation we construct. As Martin asserts, “We must admit that we are without secure foundations for knowledge… there are no guarantees that we or anyone else will not use the text unethically. There are no absolute foundations. The answer to that problem is not to keep insisting that there are but to learn to live faithful and ethical lives without secure foundations.” This brings us back to “faith, hope, and love,” and so we should have hermeneutics of charity and love!
[...] The Mind of Brian [...]