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)
(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.
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.
