2012/08/03

review: The Bible Made Impossible


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


The main title is quite attention-grabbing, perhaps, but the subtitle is a much more accurate description of the book.  Smith sets out first to show that an approach to biblical interpretation which he calls biblicism is commonplace among [American] Evangelicals, and beyond, and then to show why it necessarily completely lacks coherence - that it is an impossible position.

This 'biblicism' is a collection of beliefs surrounding the bible, relating to how to read, understand, and use it.  Smith lists ten characteristics which he says are commonplace but not universal characteristics; they include

  • 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;
  • solo sciptura: 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;
  • 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
and so on.  Though seldom stated in this way, the list is unexceptionable - Christians in the broad sweep of Evangelical churches, and some way beyond, would read the list and nod at most of them.  Smith backs up the latter point by reference to literature - scholarly and popular - which explicitly embraces one or more of these ideas. Some of this evidence looks a little over-the-top, but the complete effect is really unarguable.  

And then the punch: the problem of interpretive pluralism.  In short, the fact that many diligent readers of the Bible, whilst praying for inspiration from the Holy Spirit, reach seemingly diametrically opposed conclusions about a whole range of important matters.  These of course range from the nature of Christ's work on the cross, through the meaning and understanding of the sacraments, eschatology, predestination, how the church is to be ordered, and much more.  In short, they touch upon most of the major themes of personal and corporate Christian life.  How, then, can the Bible be treated as a handbook for living, if its readers do not agree about what it says?  

He anticipates a number of counter-arguments - but all tend to strengthen his argument.  How can Bible reading alone be sufficient to understand God's will for us, if we disagree about what it means?   We might attribute that disagreement to sin and fallenness on the part of the interpreters: but that rather nullifies the idea that we who are sinners can learn all we need to from the Bible, under the Holy Spirit's guidance.  We might imagine that many Christians manage to appraise a part of the truth - but that the whole council of God is much larger and will not be grasped this side of eternity (this could be expanded into a whole argument about postmodern readings): but this seems to say that God has not performed his goal of self-revelation very well, and that none of us can know the truth.

All of this (and more) is in chapters 1 and 2. The argument is carefully articulated, from a number of angles and perspectives, and with lots of evidence: the very idea of biblicism is impossible because it doesn't give rise to the outcome it intends; it is self-defeating. Chapters 3 and 4 develop the theme a little further, and present a range of subsidiary points.  The remainder of the book tries to be constructive, instead of leaving the reader in a nihilistic place.  It's much less convincing - the author himself admits that the first part of the book is the most important - but seems a reasonable thing to do.  

The book's purpose is narrow - to take issue with biblicism - and deliberately avoids discussions of inerrancy and other ideas on infallibility.  Indeed, Smith claims that nothing he says is at odds with an inerrantist view: that seems a stretch to me; as if to say that the bible can be regarded as inerrant as long as you don't take it literally.  But I take his general point - one can receive the Bible as the inspired word of God without buying into a biblicist position which is, in any case, rather a recent (if now pervasive) position.  

Though I think it declines in quality as it progresses (save for the last chapter, which reverses the trend), I like the book a lot.  It is thoughtful, careful, and winsome:  a narrow thesis is advanced and demonstrated.  No over-bold claims are made, and there doesn't seem to be much of an attempt to shock.  That said, the implications of his argument are far-reaching indeed.  Far from being simply an intellectual game, this stuff makes a difference.  Protestantism is divided into almost countless denominations, each of which believes it has received a slightly purer truth than its neighbours.  And not just big denominations: several small, more-or-less independent churches meet within a mile or so of the church I belong to, each separated from the others not just by its sense of mission and what's important, but also on aspects of belief and practice.  Jesus prayed for believers to have unity - but our approach to truth drives us in completely the opposite direction.  It's both intellectually untenable, as Smith demonstrates, and also profoundly damaging in practice.

I commend the book to you, dear reader!