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.