Edgework

Before we move on to proposing alternatives to Biblicism, we first need to spend some time asking a critical question: Why are Evangelicals not bothered more than they are by the “pervasive interpretive pluralism” in their ranks even though they hold to an “inerrant” biblical text. To ask it another way: How can Evangelicals ignore the variety of interpretations of the Bible all the while claiming it is clearly written and readily understood by the average person?

The fact is that biblicists disagree on a host of issues related to biblical interpretation. For example:  What does the Bible teach about how to organize a church? Do people have a free will or is everything predestined by God? Is the true biblical Sabbath for modern Christians to be observed on Saturday or Sunday? Are males and females equally gifted and called to serve in the church? Can Christians always expect to prosper financially? Are all the charismatic gifts intended for use in the church today? Which theory of atonement is the right one? Should Christians participate in war? What are the biblical guidelines for authentic worship? How should Christians relate to the culture in which they live? And the list goes on.

These differences highlight a number of important questions for biblicists. (1) If clear biblical commands are to be followed precisely, why are some simply ignored? For example; why don’t they greet each other with a holy kiss (Romans 16:16), wash each other’s feet (John 13:14-15), or keep women silent in the churches (I Timothy 2:12)? (2) What sense can biblicists make of strange passages like Paul calling all Cretans liars, evil beasts and lazy gluttons (Titus 1:12), or that an evil spirit from the Lord came upon King Saul (I Samuel 16:23)? (3) How can references in the New Testament to the veracity of Scripture – obviously a reference to the Old Testament – be so easily transferred to the New Testament text even though the New Testament canon had not yet been determined at the time of writing? (4) Why are biblicists unable to agree on a consistent social doctrine or ethic that provides guidance for how to live in the world? (5)How can biblicists avoid setting up an unnecessary crisis of faith for their young people? Once they come to realize, often in the context of higher education, that Biblicism is untenable, many find their faith foundering while some even abandon it all together.

In The Bible Made Impossible (2011), Christian Smith makes the following observation: “When we confront Biblicism’s many problems, we come to see that it is untenable. Biblicism simply cannot be practiced with intellectual and practical honesty on its own terms… Biblicism’s fatal problems are not the sort of things with which faithful Christians ought to be comfortable. Biblicism is not the way forward for evangelicalism. There must be a better way to understand and read the Bible” (89). Failing to find that better way leaves Biblicism fatally flawed.

It is fair to say that most Bible readers read the text in the context of a certain framework or paradigm that accounts for most of the biblical themes they encounter. Another way of conceiving of this practice is putting together a giant puzzle with each biblical truth encountered in the text fitting neatly into the larger picture. In both cases, the reader attempts to create a singular interpretation or meaning. The problem, of course, is that there always remain “leftover” or “outlier” texts that don’t fit the paradigm, or said another way, some pieces of the puzzle don’t seem to fit anywhere at all in the big picture. There are basically two ways of dealing with such texts: ignore them altogether, or explain them in such a way as to make them mean something that fits into one’s preferred paradigm or puzzle picture. While all Bible readers participate in these practices to a certain extent, Biblicists are particularly active on this front because of their over-riding conviction that the “inspired and infallible” text must speak with a singular voice. Their conviction that, in the end, everything will become clear and every piece will find its place in the puzzle allows them to be unbothered by “apparent” inconsistencies they might notice in the biblical text.

But there are other reasons that allow Evangelicals to remain unbothered by inconsistencies. For one, Biblicists tend to cluster together in homogeneous networks where they continually reinforce their particular perspectives. There is a certain “safety in numbers.” When most persons in your social “bubble” think like you do, you don’t have to reflect seriously about biblical interpretation.

One way to minimize the differences that exist among biblicists, is to suggest that on most important issues they are in full agreement. Differences are small and insignificant, they say. But, as we have illustrated above, this constitutes a form of denial and casts in doubt the honesty and integrity of Biblicism itself.

A more subtle and perhaps unconscious reason for contentment with the status quo is the fact that biblicists, like all other groups, use difference from others to establish their identities. Differences underscore that “we are not like them” and therefore “we don’t have to take their views seriously.”

Especially in some biblicist circles, there is an inordinate amount of fear of ecumenism. So they feel that  to work with other Christian groups to come to common understandings places them on a slippery slope that ends with liberalism. So they prefer to keep to themselves and their own ideas.

And, finally, there appears to be a psychological need to create order and security in a world that seems chaotic and insecure. Sticking to an “infallible” interpretation of Scripture provides an illusion of calm in an otherwise tumultuous world.

In the end, all these attempts to ensure singularity of interpretation creates Biblicism’s fatal flaw. To recover with any degree of integrity, biblicists will have to wrestle long and hard to overcome this deficit within their circles.