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!

 

perspective

I liked this article in Patrol Magazine, responding to a widely-cited column from the weekend's New York Times.  The latter talked of decline - specifically in the American Episcopal church - reflected in falling congregations.  Fitzgerald - editor at Patrol - argues

But the bottom line is, though it may seem self-evident that declining church attendance is evidence of something gone wrong, would we rather see churches that accommodate society’s ills grow? Isn’t it more likely that a faith that asks more than we can naturally give, that compels us to believe in things we can’t see, and calls us to live in ways that are counter to our own self interests, would find itself at odds with the prevailing culture?

And that seems very much in line with what I blogged about  a few months back, motivated by a quote from Rick Warren asserting almost the opposite - that the churches of which Fitzgerald speaks are 'in decline' precisely because they have embraced the prevailing culture. Which perspective makes more sense?

ain't seen nothing yet

There are people trying to whip up anti-Creationist sentiment against some of England's new free schools.  Depending on whom you believe, this is a great affront to science - and a damage to some children's education - or a storm in a mis-communicated tea-cup.  My guess would be that the truth lies somewhere in the middle.  It would be illegal to teach young earth creationism as a scientific theory, as I understand it, and so science lessons are not under direct threat.  On the other hand, they might be undermined by the tone of religious education lessons, one supposes, depending on how successfully the teachers can handle nuanced epistemology.  It seems reasonable to fear the worst, if those setting up the free schools have a track record on this sort of stuff.

What baffles me, though, is the way that Creationism seems to get to be the totemic issue in the utterly false debate about science versus faith.  Sure, it's nice stark place to make a comparison - if you overlook the way that Genesis chapter 1 is quite clearly a form of stylized writing, not unlike a poem.  But, really, there are  countless bible stories which those of a fundamentalist disposition might take as historical accounts (talking donkeys?  the sun standing still?) when they are really very difficult to reconcile with our normal experience of the world.  Worse, the chronology - or, indeed, the outright historicity - of some of the biblical passages which purport to give an account of past events is also at odds with the best available archaeology.

We may brush aside Genesis as an ahistorical story to make a point about the sovereignty of God - and his character in contrast to that of the gods in the Babylonian legends.  But if we observe that there is scant evidence for David being the great king who he is presented as, we begin to strike at the heart of a much bigger, broader tradition of biblical interpretation.  Christians - even thoughtful educated ones - would rather look the other way than face up to the fact that St. Paul almost certainly didn't write all the letters which bear his name.  And when questions arise about the accuracy of the biblical text we have received, well, we'd just rather not think about that.

Scholarship has a huge amount to say about the biblical text, its transmission and original content, the context and timing of its writing, and much else beside.  The theories of all those scholars will not be precise or perfect, and will be subject to revision over time.  Taken together, though, the study which has gone into the history, archaeology, linguistics, and the rest, has a huge amount to say to biblical interpretation.  And most of it is barred from being heard in our churches.

Instead we too often - particularly in the Evangelical world - have the conceit that we can take an English translation made in the 21st century and discern the intention of the original authors from reading it alone.  Even if someone could come to this bible afresh for the first time as an educated adult, the very language they speak, the language in which the translation is expressed, and the way in which we construct knowledge as a society have all co-evolved in the years since the text was written.


Young Earth Creationism is a great topic for secular humanists to get concerned about in education.  It does indeed represent a threat to the good teaching of science: but really it's just scratching the surface of a mind-set which is all too often thoroughly wedded to a pre-modern way of viewing things.  There are much bigger fish to fry.

review: Indescribable

review: Indescribable, by Louie Giglio

Our church is watching Loiue Giglio DVDs week-by-week at the moment.  I've missed most of these, but caught Indescribable last evening.  Indescribable is a good word ... perhaps one of the few printable ones I have at my fingertips to sum it up.

I wasn't sure whether to write this review - I try not to be overly negative or critical here (no, really, I do try) - but, well, the experience has stuck in my mind so perhaps it does it justice to report it.

Giglio is a preacher/pastor in Atlanta, and evidently undertakes tours with an audio-visual presentation -this one is several years old now.  Evidently he is at the heart of something called the Passion Movement which one reviewer on Amazon thought was hugely preferable to being associated with the emerging church.  So I warmed to the idea immediately (well, I can try irony).  I did Google around for his name beforehand, and found that the more reformed and fundamentalist souls distrust him - so I thought he had that at least in his favour.

Speaking to a huge, somewhat whipped-up, crowd, with a slick presentation didn't really endear him to me.  Worse, well-known manipulative speaking techniques were used throughout - rather a lot of exuberant shouting, followed sharply by intimate whispered punchlines - which seemed a bit irresponsible to me (though, if you are a speaker, an easy trap to fall into, I admit).  Combine this with speaking over a weird ethereal kind of music, while looking at pictures of constellations and galaxies, with a handful (really only a handful) of carefully-plucked scripture references, and doubtless you have the audience eating out of the palm of your hand.

The central thesis of Indescribable was that the universe is awfully big and complex, and that God made it all.  Drawing on Isaiah 40 - he who called out the starry host and calls them each by name - juxtaposed with a saviour who knows us all (and the hairs on our heads, though I don't recall that verse being invoked), the Almighty's power, wisdom, strength - and personal love and compassion are estimated indescribable. An image of the saviour on the cross cuts across the pictures of galaxies (to be followed by a cross-shaped formation in the heavens) to bring the point home.  The resurrection didn't get much of a look-in, but perhaps it was beside the point.

The breathless scientific presentation was largely inoffensive - the pictures were accompanied with an account of some of the big numbers which accompany astronomy, and frequent references to the speed of light - light issuing forth from the mouth of the creator.  He declared himself a friend of science - and didn't make any  gross mis-statements of fact that I noticed - but the sharpness of this was dimmed somewhat by a studied careful avoidance of offending the young earth creationists.  The account of the numbers was big on distance numbers, short on time - the age of the universe didn't get a mention.  To explore one without the other seems to border on the dishonest (it would be unfair to suggest that this was to protect sales - bearing with the weaker souls who cannot bear this would be the generous interpretation).

 There are much better presenters of the cosmology stuff - Brian Cox springs to mind.  He doesn't, of course,  weave scripture references into his breathless wide-eyed commentary, but I don't think the awe-inspiring vision of the universe is particularly diminished by that.  I didn't warm to Louie Giglio, and I rather doubt I shall join any of the other sessions our church is running.

face-palm

I've seen many permutations and combinations of life, lifestyle, opinion, and more, but this one still took me a little by surprise, together with the next tabs on the same page. All part of life's rich tapestry, I guess -  but maybe only in America?

retrospective

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/02/18/the-biblical-view-thats-younger-than-the-happy-meal/

This is a nice discussion of a little bit of history. It has broader implications for epistemology and hermeneutics also.

sufficient grace

I was struck by a comment from Rick Warren.  He was apparently being interviewed on ABC, repeating some nonsense about his principled objection to "same sex marriage".  He was asked about the prospect of his church adapting its views, as wider culture changes.  His response:

WARREN: Actually, history shows that when the church accommodates culture, it weakens it. This is why there is a very weak church in Europe today. It’s almost non-existent in many areas.

Now, that is hard to defend - and shows a staggering lack of self-awareness.  But the striking sentence is the middle one.  The implication is that strength is good and weakness is bad.  But I'm just not sure that that is a Kingdom principle.  Of course, context is all-important.  But in general, I'm not sure that the message of Christ is about a need to be strong, powerful, or influential.  St. Paul was assured that God's strength was made perfect in his weakness; he said that God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.

All this is a little reminiscent of the view of a certain man from Seattle who bemoaned Great Britain's lack of famous bible teachers.

Oh the irony.  If we have a business model of church, with franchises spread around the country (or the world), then fame, strength, and influence will be all-important.  But might there not be a chance, just a little one, that this is the embrace of wider culture, precisely the thing Warren complains about?  The Kingdom is different from that.  It's summed up by a man at the end of himself, hung on a cross.