Last thoughts on biblicism

C.S. Lewis wisely explained that scholars are prone to writing books in which the bulk is written on "The Problem", and the smaller section involves "The Solution", and he noted that it was hard to disagree with the large section, but that the errors were typically in the latter.

Smith's criticism of biblicism, I believe, is spot on, and I will join the choir of those who renounce it and will encourage others to do the same.  However, I have some lingering worries and questions:

1)  Smith considers epistemological foundationalism as dubious.  However, many of the subtleties of the position are side-stepped and not considered.  Perhaps this is due to the fact that Smith is a sociologist and not a professional philosopher (though much props to him, since he is a specialist who is extremely well-read in a whole host of other domains such as theology and philosophy--he is a model scholar and I hope to be the kind of "amateur" [in the non-pejorative sense] that he is).  It is not obvious to me that there is a clear cut path to these epistemological positions to the biblicist view.

  Moreover, he merely mentions his favored view, critical realism, without explaining clearly and without  much detail.  Now he has defended the position in another book (which he mentions in a footnote), so I won't criticize him too hard here, since I should read that other book (whenever I get the time).  But what he does say about it here, I'm not really sure what the view is.

2)  Smith thinks that we should abandon inerrantism about the Bible.  Not sure why he thinks so.  I understand that the motivation some people have for "proving" inerrantism have let them slip into biblicism.  But his criticism of biblicism and his proposed approach (which he provides a mere sketch) seems to me to be compatible with inerrantism (appropriately understood, and recognizing that the Bible is not merely an aggregate of indicative propositions that can have truth-values).  I think a lot of evangelicals would be more sympathetic to his critique if he left inerrantism alone or at least said that his account is compatible either with the truth or falsity of inerrantism (sadly, I think some evangelicals will dismiss his great work altogether because of this).

(Smith does, in the conclusion, say that his critique of biblicism neither falisfies divine inspiration nor inerrancy of the Scriptures.  However, in the text, his apparent criticism, I fear, may turn off those who need to hear his case)

3)  Smith suggests that "it is better to err on the side of a minimalist view of what is essential to Christian faith and life than a maximalist view...The more Christians insist on making long lists of theological 'essentials' that real or true Christians ought to believe in order to be recognized as within the bounds of the true faith and deserving the fellowship of communion, the more the body of Christ becomes conflicted, divided, and disunifed" (Smith, p. 146).

   My worry is how "low can you go".  Smith insists that we read the Scripture from the lens of Nicene and Chalcedonian Christology.  But perhaps that is not minimalist enough, since that excludes oneness pentacostals and other Bible-and-Jesus-lovin' folk.  Moreover, if we go extremely minimalist, it is not obvious why we would exclude certain groups that evangelicals currently do exclude, such as Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, etc.  What is the minimal essential?  If it is the creeds, on what grounds can that be claimed (obvious I take it on the grounds of Tradition and the Magisterium; but Smith, though a committed Catholic, has tried to avoid association with these in order to provide an evangelical-friendly approach--but I'm not sure if that'll work)?  If not on the creeds, then why can't we minimalize the essentials so as to include Mormons and JW's, especially if we'll include oneness pentacostals?  Or if we don't include these groups, what is the principled reason why we don't?  That is, what determines whether we've gone "minimal" enough, and how far is too far?

All evangelicals should read this book.  I would even welcome evangelicals to challenge his conclusion, especially those who want to defend biblicism.  Although I would not want to do so, I can imagine that one way of going is by adopting an extreme form of "sticking to one's guns" regarding reasonable disagreement with peers and experts.

More on Biblicism

For the most part, I'm in hearty agreement with Smith's criticism of biblicism, and that evangelicals (or for that matter, Christians of any stripe) should abandon it.

Although he does not offer a full blown solution or alternative to biblicism (as the wise and the humble are oft found to do), he does suggest several rough sketches of a viable alternative that avoids the pitfalls of biblicism.

Briefly, the key to interpreting the Scriptures is by reading it through the lens of traditional Christology.  That is, we see the Scriptures as bearing witness to Jesus Christ, and that everything in it be read with that interpretive goal in mind.  This is compatible with a view of divine inspiration with or without also holding to the inerrancy of Scripture.  Moreover, it avoids the problem of seeing the Bible as a mere handbook or instruction manual for various facets of the human experience.

One worry I have with Smith's solution is that he merely asserts that it must be through this particular lens.  Here's what he says:

"This means that we always read scripture Christocentrically, christologically, and christotelically, as those who really believe what the Nicene and Chalcedonian creeds say...This also means that we always read the Bible as committed trinitarians, as those who do not merely "believe in God", but who actually believe in God in particular as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" (Bible Made Impossible, p. 98).

I haven't finished the book yet (the last chapter is partly on authority), but my worry is on what authoritative grounds can Smith assert that this is the "real way" to read the Bible.  After all, oneness pentacostals will object, for they will not read the Bible through the lens of the Nicene and Chalcedonian creeds, and that is true of some other Bible-and-Jesus-lovin' folk (e.g., Dale Tuggy).  Such Christians have a commitment to both the teachings of Scripture (as they see it) and to Jesus (even if they do not construe Him as being of the same substance as the Father), so why should they fall in line with Smith's hermeneutical approach as  opposed to some other?

Now I should say, I'm in firm agreement with Smith, that the Scriptures must be read in a Christocentric fashion, the Christology being what was affirmed in the Nicene-Constantinpolitan creed that followed the 2nd Ecumenical Council (380/1) and the Chalcedonian definition that followed the Council of Chalcedon (451).  But that is because I take it that Tradition is one of the pillars of authority, and that the proper Scriptural interpretation cannot be by some stand-alone methodology (favorable to those who trumpet "sola Scriptura") but requires Tradition and even the Magisterium (ack... I'm saying this as an evangelical Protestant... recall that I'm a methodist with a strong commitment to Wesleyan theology).

My worry is over the grounds by which Smith can charge other Christians who don't hold to Tradition, and so do not hold to the Creeds, into following his methodology as opposed to some other (perhaps, reading the Scripture Christologically and Christocentrically, but without thinking of Christ as being of the same substance as the Father and as not having two natures).

I'm thoroughly enjoying the book, and will likely finish it soon.  Definitely recommend for all evangelicals to read, even if they disagree with Smith.

Biblicism

No posts of recent.  So here's something.

I am currently reading Christian Smith's The Bible Made Impossible, where he argues that the standard conception of Biblical authority that is held by a wide majority of American evangelicals is not just problematic but internally incoherent.

The standard conception is "biblicism", which is basically the view that the Bible is the absolute, unerring, and final authority of both truths of the faith and over manner of living, such that the Bible serves as a kind of "handbook" or "instruction manual" for how Christians ought to live, and where no other source of authority is required to settle the matter.

The problem in short is that even if one claims that the Bible is inerrant or infallible, absolutely authoritative, etc., the actual practice has lead to what Smith calls "Pervasive Interpretative Pluralism" (or, what I'll call 'PIP' for short), which is the fact that many well-meaning, sincere, intelligent (evangelical) readers of the Bible will walk away with a whole host of different interpretations.

So even though Jones and Mary both say that the Bible is the absolute guide by which they will form their religious beliefs and will conduct their lives, it is not unlikely that Jones and Mary may diverge in what they believe and how they think they should live.  That is, there is widespread disagreement.  Given the so-called (democratic) perspicuity of the Scriptures, it seems strange that this would occur.  Nor can Jones and Mary resolve their disagreement by appealing to the Bible, since it is the very source of their conflicting views.

Now I have no real problems with there being disagreement of this sort, and it is, for the most part, just what I expect to happen.  For example, Smith lists several standard examples of disagreement, where the parties to the disagreement cite the Bible as "proof" or evidence for the correctness of their view.  Some of these are the disagreements over church government, Arminian vs. Calvinist understanding of providence (as well as freedom and predestination), gender roles (especially with respect to church leadership), charismatic gifts (e.g., tongues, prophecy), etc.  I suspect that there would be such disagreement since I take it that the Biblical evidence is underdetermined regarding many of these issues and positions.

However, Smith's main point is that many evangelicals believe that such issues can be resolved and certain positions endorsed as the Biblical position solely based on Scripture.  But this is impossible given the PIP that follows from biblicism.

I have a bigger worry than Smith's (though along the same lines).  Many evangelicals will consider these debates as "non-essential" doctrinal matters.  However, there is also PIP with respect to what many evangelicals would call "essential" doctrines.  For instance, the doctrine of the Trinity has been given various interpretations, over and above the creedal formulations.  Many argue that the creedal formulations cannot be derived directly form Scripture, and many evangelicals hold a theory of Trinity that in no way resembles the creedal formulations.  Furthermore, some evangelicals, like the oneness pentacostals, reject Trinitarianism altogether.  Now some may just consider them non-Christians, but that seems fairly hasty, especially given their commitment to the teachings of the Bible (they typically are biblicists) and allegiance to Jesus as their Savior (though he is not divine).  The evangelical cannot point to Bibical passages since some fellow evangelicals will say no Trinitarian passage is to be found (and will interpret differently the proposed passage that serves as evidence).  Thus, here is what looks to be an "essential" doctrine in which the pesky problem of PIP lurks.

Furthermore, there is the PIP with respect to what even counts as essential and non-essential.  C.S. Lewis takes the doctrine of the Trinity (in its creedal formulation) to be essential, whereas oneness pentacostals do not.  Some evangelicals take baptism to be an essential matter in the Christian life, whereas others do not (it is merely symbolic, an "outside expression of an inside decision" or something like that).  Some evangelicals take it as essential to the Christian life that one must accept a certain account of justification (some Reformers do), whereas others do not.  Given this kind of PIP about essential/non-essential matters, it becomes even more difficult to state any set of conditions by which we can clearly demarcate Christians from non-Christians (or at least evangelicals from non-evangelicals).

One lesson to draw.  Evangelicals should use the word 'heretic' and 'heresy' very scarcely and with a great deal of caution.

But my worry (of which many previous posts deal with) remains.  What is the unifying factor for evangelical protestantism?  It can no longer be the "teachings" found in the Bible, since the "teachings" are legion (at least for evangelicals that embrace biblicism).  If Smith is correct such that evangelicals must reject biblicism, where else can they turn regarding authoritative declarations over praxis and doxastic matters?  Smith claims at the outset that though he eventually became Catholic, that evangelicals don't necessarily have to even if they agree that they should reject biblicism.  But where else can they turn to authority?  Eventually they will turn to Tradition (along with Scripture), but Tradition itself will have some degree of PIP (though much less than biblicism).  Thus, the only remaining option seems to be a live, current authority, one in which division is not possible, and that looks an awful lot like the Magisterium, and in particular the see of Peter.