Journal for Scripture &eology voiumr , x (zc) sc-sc

issn zs-scc ooi c.ssz:/-.sc scripLureLheology.ca/jsL/-/sc

ChrisLian SmiLh, e Bible Made Impossible: Why
Biblicismis Not a Truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture
Crand Rapids, Michigan: Brazos Press, zo. Pp. xiv + zzo.
Hardcover. szz.qq.
WESLEY A. HILL
'
Submiued: o [uly zo AccepLed: z OcLober zo Published online: z6 OcLober zo.
CopyrighL zo [ST and Lhe auLhor, released under a cc sv-nc .o license.
ChrisLian SmiLh, proessor o sociology and direcLor o Lhe CenLer or Lhe SLudy
o Religion and SocieLy aL Lhe UniversiLy o NoLre Bame, besL known perhaps
or his award-winning book, co-auLhored wiLh Michael O. Emerson, Divided by
Faith: Evangelical Religion and the Problem of Race in America (Oxord UniversiLy
Press, zoo), has Lurned his auenLion Lo evangelical use o ScripLure in his mosL
recenL sLudy. Te LiLle discloses Lhe Lwo halves o Lhe books argumenL. Evangel-
ical biblicism (Lo be dened below) has made Lhe Bible impossible, has ren-
dered iL unable Lo achieve Lhe work iL was designed Lo do. BuL an evangelical
reading o Lhe Bible, one LhaL is orienLed aL all Limes Lo Lhe evangel, Lhe ChrisL-
evenL, avoids Lhe problems o biblicismand allows ScripLure Lo uncLion righLly
in Lhe lie o Lhe church.
SmiLh, a recenL converL Lo CaLholicism, wriLes as a ormer evangelical con-
cerned LhaL evangelicals be able Lo accepL his argumenL on Lheir own Lerms,
wiLhouL having recourse Lo CaLholic undersLandings o ScripLure vis--vis Lhe
MagisLerium. Accordingly, his projecL LargeLs evangelical examples o bibli-
cism, by which he reers Lo a parLicular Lheory abouL and sLyle o using Lhe
Bible LhaL is dened by a consLellaLion o relaLed assumpLions and belies abouL
Lhe Bibles naLure, purpose, and uncLion (p. |). TaL Lheory and sLyle is com-
prised o Len inLerlocking eaLures: () Lhe Bible is divine wriLing such LhaL iLs
words are Cods words, (z) iL is a LoLal represenLaLion o Cods communicaLion,
() including compleLe coverage o Lhe divine will, (|) iL is perspicuous and Lhus
open Lo democraLic inLerpreLaLion, () which proceeds by way o common-
sense hermeneuLics, (6) leading Lo a docLrine o solo scriptura (ScripLure de-
nuded, uncloLhed by creeds and conessions), and (;) because Lhe Bible pos-
sesses inLernal harmony (8) and universal applicabiliLy, (q) Lhereore, an induc-
Live meLhodis besL suiLedLounearLhingLhe Bibles meaning, (o) whichsuggesLs
a handbook model whereby Lhe Bible is mined or iLs posiLions on everyLhing
rom daLing Lo gardening.
'
BurhamUniversiLy, UK Email: w.a.hillQdurham.ac.uk
oz Wesley A. Hill
By adopLing Lhis biblicisL accounL o Lhe Bible and iLs uncLion in ChrisLian
LhoughL and lie, evangelicals musL necessarily also be commiued Lo Lhe no-
Lion LhaL Lhe Bible gives clear and cerLain purchase on divine revelaLion. BuL,
SmiLh noLes, Lhe opposiLe proves Lo be Lrue in pracLice. While appealing Lo Lhe
same Bible, dierenL evangelical readers arrive aL wildly divergenL consLruals
noL only o peripheral mauerssuch as gender roles in Lhe church or Lhe righL
mode o bapLismbuL alsoo major, cenLral Leachings onchrisLologyandsoLeri-
ology, Lo name only Lwo conLesLed arenas. Knowledge o biblical Leachings, in
shorL, is characLerized by pervasive interpretive pluralism (p. ;, emphasis origi-
nal).
For SmiLh, pervasive inLerpreLive pluralism should orce evangelicals Lo re-
consider whaL Lhey Lhink abouL Lhe naLure o Lhe Bible iLsel. [Ojn imporLanL
mauers Lhe Bible apparenLly is noL clear, consisLenL, and univocal enough Lo
enable Lhe besL-inLenLioned, mosL highly skilled, believing readers Lo come Lo
agreemenL as Lo whaL iL Leaches (p. z). Tereore, raLher Lhan being Lhe prod-
ucL o inLerpreLers misundersLandings, willul or oLherwise, o a clear reve-
laLion, Lhe inLerpreLive pluralism SmiLh documenLs exisLs because Lhe LexLs
Lhemselves are mulLivocal, polysemic, and mulLivalenL in characLer (p. o, c.
p. |z). Seeing Lhe diversiLy o opinions on almosL every major issue o docLrine
and pracLice should lead evangelicals Lo recognize Lhe messy, pluriormcharac-
Ler o Lhe Bible.
WhaL is needed, Lhen, is a beuer Lheological accounL o whaL kind o LexL
ScripLure is andLhereore whaL we canexpecL romiL. Here SmiLhenlisLs BarLhs
help (pp. z6) Lo argue LhaL Lhe Bible is a collecLion o diering voices LhaL may
be heard in concerL insoar as Lhey are heard Lo be wiLnesses o Cods singular
and saving acL in [esus ChrisL. Tis means LhaL we always read ScripLure Chris-
LocenLrically, chrisLologically, and chrisLoLelically, as Lhose who really believe
whaL Lhe Nicene andChalcedoniancreeds say (p. q8, emphasis original). AdopL-
ing Lhis evangelical (in Lhe rooL sense o evangel) rule would enable evangelicals
Lo eschew Lhe handbook approach, wherein ScripLure is mined or advice on
various and sundry concerns, and Lo concenLraLe insLead on undersLanding Lhe
Bible as LesLimony Lo Lhe saving signicance o [esus. Addressing Lhe concerns
evangelicals (righLly) wish Lo address musL involve examining Lhose concerns
in lighL o Cods saving deed in ChrisL raLher Lhan in lighL o individual LexLs
collecLed rom Lhe pages o Lhe Bible and LreaLed as Limeless LruLhs (p. ).
Readers may well wonder whaL is newinLhis proposalor or LhaL mauer in
Lhe criLique LhaL comprises Lhe books rsL hal. ParL o Lhe originaliLy o SmiLhs
argumenL may be LhaL popular evangelical insLances o biblicism (e.g., Lhe T-
shirL slogan BIBLEBasic InsLrucLion Beore Leaving EarLh or books wiLh Li-
Lles like e World According to God: A Biblical View of Culture, Work, Science, Sex,
and Everything Else, see pp. 6z) are Lraced back Lo insLiLuLional, conessional,
and scholarly conLexLs LhaL allegedly give rise Lo, or aL leasL do noLhing Lo check,
Lhem. So, immediaLely aer noLing Lhe problems o appealing Lo Bible LexLs Lo
yield, say, a coherenL ChrisLian accounL o business eLhics, SmiLh criLiques Lhe
WesLminsLer Conession o FaiLh and Lhe q;8 Chicago SLaLemenL on Biblical In-
errancy, among oLher sLaLemenLs o belie adopLed by insLiLuLions like WheaLon
j.st c.ssz:/-.sc
Reviewo ChrisLian SmiLh, e Bible Made Impossible o
College and TriniLy Evangelical BiviniLy School, as examples o biblicism(p. |).
His poinL seems Lo be LhaL Lhese conessions and sLaLemenLs are organically re-
laLed Lo Lhe more popular orms o biblicism he ciLes.
SmiLh does acknowledge, on Lhe basis o a survey o required LexLbooks aL
a range o evangelical seminaries and colleges, LhaL biblicism as he denes iL
is not LaughL direcLly by mosL aculLy and evangelical seminaries and diviniLy
schools (p. 8 n. 6). He also qualies his argumenL by acknowledging his de-
iniLion o biblicism as a synLheLic, summary one, and noL all LargeLs o criLique
would hold Lo each o iLs Len poinLs. BuL despiLe Lhe caveaLs, readers may sLill
nd Lhemselves unsure abouL how ar SmiLhs criLique is meanL Lo exLend. He
does noL engage exLensively wiLhLhose who have laboredLo armsome aspecLs
o whaL he Lerms biblicism in conessionally and hisLorically rooLed ways. Te
work o TimoLhy Ward on Lhe suciency o ScripLure (see his Word and Sup-
plement: Speech Acts, Biblical Texts, and the Suciency of Scripture), or insLance,
doesnL appear in SmiLhs bibliography, nor is Kevin Vanhoozers recenL reha-
biliLaLion o an evangelical ScripLure principle (in, e.g., e Drama of Doctrine)
a prominenL conversaLion parLner in Lhe book. One is le wondering wheLher
SmiLh deems Lhese proposals or an idenLiLy beLween Lhe (variegaLed) words o
ScripLure and Cods own speech Lo have ailedand how his argumenL mighL
have been complicaLed or enriched had he chosen Lo engage Lhem.
AL a deeper level, however, iL is simply noL Lrue LhaL Lhe pervasive inLerpre-
Live pluralism SmiLh Lakes Lo be Lhe deadly ruiL o a biblicisL model is only a
problemor evangelicals and Lhereore direcLly relaLed Lo evangelical biblicism.
Te docLrinal dierences among evangelicals LhaL SmiLh highlighLs (church
poliLy, ree will and predesLinaLion, Lhe ourLh commandmenL, aLonemenL
and jusLicaLion, charismaLic gis, eLc., see pp. z86) are debaLed in ChrisLian
churches LhaL would noL idenLiy as ProLesLanL, leL alone evangelical. Such dis-
agreemenL seems endemic Lo Christian Lhinking and living, and noL jusL biblicist
Lhinking. By Lhe same Loken, SmiLhs own church, Lhe Roman CaLholic Church,
arms boLhLhe divine inspiraLionandinerrancyo ScripLure (see Lhe Catechism
of the Catholic Church, ArLicle .z.o8) and ScripLures ChrisLocenLric characLer
(ArLicle .z.o8)and also adopLs highly specic posiLions on womens ordina-
Lion, clerical celibacy, Lhe moraliLy o conLracepLives, Lo name only a ewissues
abouL which many evangelicals would disagree. CerLainly Lhe CaLholic church
wishes Lo arm Lhese posiLions by a Lrain o Lheological reasoning LhaL pre-
cludes appeal Lo ScripLure alone. However, Lhe poinL sLands LhaL Laking onboard
a ChrisLocenLric hermeneuLic does noL by iLsel pressure Lhe church Lo abandon
a posiLion on issues abouL which Lhere is, arguably, diversiLy, mulLivocaliLy, and
polysemy in Lhe biblical LexLs. In LhaL lighL, can SmiLhs consLrucLive proposal
achieve all LhaL he wishes or iL Lo achieve ApparenLly noL, aL leasL noL wiLhouL
enLeringinLopreciselyLhe quesLionLhaL LhoughLul evangelicals regularlypose:
How do we know whaL a chrisLological, evangelical (i.e., gospel-cenLric) ap-
proach Lo, say, womens ordinaLion looks like wiLhouL engaging in Lhe inher-
enLly problemaLic, complicaLed Lask o hearing ScripLures own voice on LhaL is-
sue rom Lhe perspecLive o Lhe ChrisL-evenL In oLher words, iL does noL seem
LhaL asking abouL ScripLures viewpoinL(s) on a given issue x really is so neaLly
j.st c.ssz:/-.sc
o| Wesley A. Hill
separable rom asking whaL iL means Lo Lhink abouL LhaL issue chrisLologically,
as SmiLhs argumenL implies.
In shorL, SmiLhs book raises quesLions any serious ChrisLian reader o Lhe
Bible will have Lo ace. YeL due Lo iLs vague sLarLing poinL (how exLensive, ex-
acLly, is Lhe Lribe o Lhe biblicisLs) and iLs equally vague consLrucLive proposal
(howdoes reading Lhe Bible chrisLologically solve Lhe problemo pervasive in-
LerpreLive pluralism, i virLually every LhoughLul ChrisLian, including many o
Lhe biblicisLs he criLiques, already agrees wiLh LhaL aim), Lhe book is unlikely
Lo achieve whaL is laudable in iLs goals or Lo reach Lhose who mosL need Lo give
up some o Lhe pracLices SmiLh decries.
j.st c.ssz:/-.sc