Peter Leithart’s response to my book is more reasonable than some reviews I have had the misfortune to read recently. But his response essentially dodges rather than engages my book’s central argument.
The case I argue in the first half of my book is simple, consisting of four central claims and a conclusion. First, I claim that biblicism, which I define clearly, is widespread in American Evangelicalism. Biblicism is a particular theory about how the Bible ought to function as an authority in Christian life. Second, I argue, if this biblicist theory is correct, then it should produce (among those who hold it, at least) a largely shared understanding of what scripture teaches, an interpretive convergence, especially on central theological matters. Third, as a matter of empirical fact, biblicism produces nothing of the sort; instead, American Evangelicalism embodies a pervasive interpretive pluralism in biblical interpretation and theology. Fourth, none of the possible biblicist explanations of the fact of this pluralism succeeds in salvaging biblicism—they may work to explain pluralism, but then biblicism itself is undermined because the explanations are incompatible with key biblicist beliefs. Therefore, I conclude, biblicism as a theory is impossible, simply not viable, because the real world of biblical practice contradicts it, reflecting interpretive theological outcomes that should not exist if biblicism were a viable theory.
I think I am simply saying here what is patently obvious, but which many Evangelicals seem to want to ignore, since to admit it would be to recognize a huge problem. But ignoring the problem does not make it go away.
The second half of my book offers some constructive suggestions for those who recognize biblicism’s impossibility and want to move toward a post-biblicist world, but who are not prepared to become Catholic (as I have done) or Eastern Orthodox. (Readers should not confuse this book with another I recently published, How to Go from Being a Good Evangelical to a Committed Catholic in 95 Difficult Steps). My suggestions in the second half of my biblicism book do not pretend to be complete, sufficient, or infallible. And they ought not to divert attention from the critical first half of the book.
Here, then, is where Leithart’s response goes wrong. First, he thinks he is catching me in an inconsistency around the issue of scripture’s “universality.” But he is confused. The way universality functions in a biblicist framework is very different than with the kind of Christocentric hermeneutic I, following Barth and others, propose. Leithart’s language itself betrays the sometimes biblicist conflation of Christ and the Bible. Of course Jesus Christ is the universal creator, upholder, redeemer, and Lord of all things. But that does not mean the Bible provides a direct universality of applications to all things about which it apparently speaks. So I do not accept Leithart’s view of “universality.” But I do believe—as I argue in the book, against those who say that the Bible is only concerned with “religious faith and morals”—that a theological grasp of who Christ is and who we are in relation to Christ, and what Christ reveals to us about the Holy Trinity, does indeed put us in a position to think Christianly about all of reality. Yet that is quite different from (an even Christ-centered) biblicism.
Second, Leithart attempts to show inconsistencies in my case by drawing attention especially to the most ridiculous books on “biblical dating,” “biblical cooking,” etc. But that is only one piece of a much larger collection of empirical data I offer about the extent of biblicism in American evangelicalism. More troubling are the “Three/Four/Five Views of ______” books that evangelical publishers produce aplenty, on both peripheral and central theological matters. I also present lots of specific evidence of biblicism’s influence in evangelical denominations, seminaries, para-church ministries, theological declarations, and so on. I have noticed that hostile reviews of my book tend to focus on the more ridiculous examples of the “biblical cooking” sort, as a way, it seems to me, of sweeping the larger problem under the rug. But that is diversionary from the main event. We are not talking merely about loonies who can be laughed off, but the warp and woof of much of mainstream evangelicalism.
Further, Leithart’s attempt to rescue biblicism under the banner of a Christ-centered biblicism will not, in my view, succeed. It is better in theory than some kinds of biblicism. But when it is actually practiced, it usually ends up looking mostly like the same less sophisticated versions, and I do not see it producing much less pervasive interpretive pluralism than we have now. Of course no biblicist of any stripe is going to say Christ should not be the center. But that does not mean they consistently practice a strongly Christocentric hermeneutic—it is easy to flop back and forth, I observe. Nor does endorsing the Christocentric idea per se resolve the problems to which my book points. I think the theoretical sickness is much more severe than Leithart admits, and so the medicine will have to be stronger.
Finally, Leithart’s focusing our attention on “do unto others” instead of the many other more difficult, strange, and seemingly indigestible passages of scripture also diverts attention away from the magnitude and intractability of the larger problem. Some of his points near the end of his response are good. But they themselves do not actually confront and resolve, but rather mostly dodge, my book’s central argument.
Those who wish to effectively refute my book’s argument might do one or more of the following. First, they might show that biblicism is in fact not widespread in American Evangelicalism. Second, they might show that biblicism in fact need not to produce fairly convergent readings of the Bible. Third, they might show that Evangelicalism is empirically not characterized by pervasive interpretive pluralism. Fourth, they might show that one or another possible explanation offered in fact successfully rescues biblicism from the fact of pervasive interpretive pluralism. Lots of luck with any of these. Making one and three stick require taking leave of reality. Two and four might only be demonstrated by eliminating some key parts of biblicism, which would turn it into a quite different theory. If someone can accomplish any of these, I’d like to see that magic performed. But I see none of it in Leithart’s response.
In short, the first half of my book needs to be addressed and answered directly for its main critical argument. The second, constructive half of the book might be temporarily ignored, as far as I’m concerned. In any case, squabbles with the second half must not intentionally or inadvertently distract attention from the challenge of the first half—something I observe happening too often, perhaps conveniently, in reviews critical of my book. By the time Leithart has explained his own dissatisfactions, the main thrust of my book’s central argument also gets lost. What we deserve to see is Leithart or whoever else focusing on that central argument and explaining why my critique of biblicism as impossible is wrong.
Christian Smith is the William R. Kenan, Jr. Professor of Sociology and Director of the Center for the Study of Religion and Society at the University of Notre Dame.
RESOURCES
Peter Leithart, A Cheer and a Half for Biblicism
Christian Smith, The Bible Made Impossible
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
I suppose Christian Smith would label me a Biblicist. But when I look at how far Catholicism has strayed from the plain word of God (e.g., doctrines of Mary, priests, saints, etc.) As an example, Catholic priest I knew talked about his "network of [lay] volunteers" and had no time for the Biblical concept of "fellow workers" in the New Testament. It was, in the words of my ex-Catholic, now Mormon friend, a religion that is done to you. While it may not be Biblicist, it too is fragmented by sin, but uses different points of departure (liberation theology, syncretism, etc. to which Biblicists are not as susceptible). So, I see no improvement there. I see more water in that boat than in mine.
We ought to be one body. The Catholic church ought to be the one church. But it too must soften its heart, change its mind, repent and make radical changes to fulfill that role as Christ intended it, and to enable the rest of Christs body to be rejoined to it. One of those changes is to heed fully Christ's straightforward command that his "mother and brothers are those who hear God's word and obey it."
I did not dodge the first half of Smith’s book, but by focusing on his constructive proposal I did come at the first half of the book obliquely. My implicit answer to his critique of biblicism is to show that his critique reduces to a critique of plain-sense hermeneutics and the expectations of clarity that this hermeneutical stance implies. Pluralism is only a refutation of a biblicism that claims that the Bible is so transparent that everyone can easily draw the same conclusions from Scripture. If the hermeneutical assumptions are removed, most of Smith’s critique fails. We are back to dealing with the text itself, which is what Smith himself at times tells us to do.
Besides, plain-sense hermeneutics has been under a barrage of criticism from Evangelicals for the past quarter century, and so biblicism as Smith uses the term is not as pervasive as he claims.
To a few specifics.
On universality: Cornelius Van Til, whom Smith cites in an end note as an advocate of “complete coverage,” explicitly says, in the very quotation that Smith cites, that the Bible speaks “directly or indirectly” of everything.
On conflating Christ and the Bible: I plead guilty in the sense that the Bible records Jesus’ speech and on the assumption that Jesus’ speech is, like everyone’s, inseparable from His Person. He is the Word who speaks words. As I said in my original post, Smith dodges the specifics of the text. He grants universal applicability to a “theological grasp of who Christ is,” but doesn’t let the Bible define the terms of that theological grasp.
On strange and indigestible passages: As Smith surely knows, he’s not the first to notice them. Should a man have sex with his wife during her monthly period? he asks, citing Leviticus 18:19. Biblicists would typically say No, and would give exegetical arguments for why this is part of the now-defunct ceremonial law of Israel. Again, he surely knows that this would be the biblicist answer, so why is Smith dissatisfied with this response? Is Smith saying it’s silly to even ask the question? Many Jews would disagree. Is Smith saying God would never bother Himself with this kind of thing? How would he know that? God apparently did bother with that kind of thing. Or, is Smith saying that it’s incompatible with biblicism to interpret Leviticus 18:19 in the light of Hebrews? But that takes us back to the hermeneutical paradigm that is the real gravamen of his critique. Like the list of books, it seems that Smith thinks his long list of problem passages can stand alone as evidence against biblicism. But it is evidence only against the hermeneutical claims of biblicism.
This seems like the easiest place to start. I imagine that Jesus Christ understands the precise meaning of the Word, and could tell us what the right interpretation of God's revelation to man should look like. But as for the rest of us, it seems our common experience is to see through the glass but darkly. I would turn this and ask the author to show us a discipline where all the experts agree on the meaning of a text that is as important as Scripture. Doesn't academia exist precisely because humans disagree on what things mean? Because some people have different insights? Because a meshing of these insights, to see what works and what doesn't, to get to the bottom of things, is a helpful and important exercise?
In addition to Mr. Smith's reasonable observation that, if this approach to the Bible is in fact tenable, we should not see such a wide variety of different and incompatible beliefs among different independent churches, as well as Mr. Holding's good point that what most Biblicists are reading today is a translation many steps removed from the original language and interpretive context of the Bible, I also challenge my Biblicist friends with the following two apologetic questions:
1. How do you know the Bible on which you rely is in fact the Bible? If you reject the authority of the Catholic Church then you can't accept the Church's settlement of the canon either (e.g., Council of Carthage).
2. What of the poor souls who lived during the 1600 odd years before the invention of the printing press and widespread literacy? Does it really seem plausible that God would have intended men to rely on their own independent reading of the Bible as the sole arbiter of faith, when such was impossible for most Christians for so long?
clumsy modality transfer? He grounds all of his premises on sociological,
descriptive phenomena (what is, empirically, the case) and arrives at a
conclusion of logical necessity (biblicism is "impossible.")
You cannot arrive at conclusions of logical necessity from strictly empirical
premises. All he can say is that biblicism hasn't empirically been practiced in
a way he can affirm, but that is a far cry from what he wants to conclude: that
biblicism is "non-viable."
I see that Smith is a sociologist, and I think sociologists are particularly
prone to this kind of overreach, assuming that empirical description is the same
thing as logical prescription. It seems to me Leithart is arguing in the logical
modality (hermeneutical expectations are logically "detachable" from the
question of biblicism, per se), and Smith responds by saying, in essence, that Leithart hasn't appreciated his sociological analysis. Two ships passing in the
night....
How did the early Church know that the Bible it had was reliable before councils infallibly decided the canon? The early Church Fathers confidently quoted the Scriptures as authoritative before councils officially listed the canonical books. Protestants therefore are in a situation analogous to that of the early Church before the "Church's settlement".
But for him to offer what one endorser called a "slap in the face" to Evangelicalism really is rich, given 1. the theological diversity that proliferates in Catholicism, and 2. the fact his laments are really the exact same ones converts to the Church have forever leveled at Protestants for over 100 years when engaging in apologetic score-settling. He says this book should not be confused with his "95 Difficult Steps," but its sibling resemblance is impossible to miss in terms of tone. Earnest, clever, hip, and not especially nice.
Regarding the second point James makes about 1600 odd years of illiteracy - it makes good historical sense why literacy was not promoted as tenaciously in an environment where it was supposed that the laity is unable to understand clearly the message of scripture without the help of ecclesiastical authority. Poor souls, indeed.
Also, though we must run in different circles, most evangelicals I know would not say that the Bible is the 'sole' arbiter of faith. Most of us have pastors, creeds and forms of tradition as well. Primary or highest authority are more accurate descriptions of an evangelical view of scripture.
Thanks to Joe for clarifying the 'interpretive pluralism' that exists in the Catholic communion. I have had enough experience with it that ultimately what we have to conclude is that there are three options when it come to Bible/Tradition. Either the Bible is the controlling center of the Church's tradition or the Bible is thought to be one aspect of the Church's overriding Tradition or the Bible and Tradition have equal authority. Christian Smith has not convinced me to leave option the first option in favor of one of the other two.
John 17:21
The Reformation is arguably the worst thing to ever occur to the Western world.
Sorry, but the mess we have is the mess we have. You can blame it on the Reformation; I blame it on the fall. The greatest commandment hasn't changed, and God calls us to that love regardless of what doctrinal positions we hold, or the opinions we have of those who hold doctrinal positions we disagree with. Those with a dogmatic and absolutist disposition have a hard time with such love.
Of course, Leithart is correct that our convictions about Christ must lead to our convictions about hermeneutics, and in that sense the Bible's speech about Christ "indirectly" addresses hermeneutics.
But from where do we gain our convictions about Christ? Not from the Bible alone, or else the Bible would be ontologically identical to Christ. No, we get our convictions about Christ from all the gifts of the Triune God: the mysterious work of the Holy Spirit, the presence of the Logos in creation, the work of Christ in and through the Church, and then the scriptures, which bear witness to the greater ontological reality of Christ himself.
Christ comes first, the scriptures follow and bear witness -- not the other way around. For conservative Evangelicalism, the scriptures come first and Christ follows after. This is why the scriptures are so often used in those circles for improper purposes -- creation science, precise correlation with modern historiography and archeology, the "Bible diet", end-times politics, and much more. If Leithart doesn't understand the pervasiveness of this problem as Smith describes it, then he hasn't spent any real time in Evangelical churches. Ask anyone who's been there. Ask anyone who's tried to explain to fellow congregants why the "Creation Museum" and the "Noah's Ark Park" are not happy developments, or why Hurricane Irene is not a sure sign that "the Tribulation" is near.
"You've obviously failed to realize and accept the fact that we live in a fallen world."
Care to point out how you gleaned that from my comment? Seems kinda, well, non sequitir-y.
"There is no perfect Church, no perfect doctrine, no perfect historical milieu, no perfect anything."
I do not understand what you are saying. Please be explicit. I think you and I both agree that Christ was perfect, but here you say that there exists "no[thing] perfect..." So please explain.
"I have argued that there are such people as conservative Utopians who are the mirror image of progressive leftists: there was a time in the past when everything was just the way it should be according to their lights. Any variation on the moment in time is a tragedy and has led to the deplorable state of the world (or whatever) as we currently find it."
Arguing is generally an activity that occurs between two or more groups or persons. I do not know anyone that would disagree that there exist "conservative Utopians." Talking to yourself is not arguing.
"Sorry, but the mess we have is the mess we have. You can blame it on the Reformation; I blame it on the fall."
This is a category mistake. The Fall is the origination of sin in the world. The Reformation is simply an instantiation of sin in the world, made possible by the Fall.
"The greatest commandment hasn't changed, and God calls us to that love regardless of what doctrinal positions we hold, or the opinions we have of those who hold doctrinal positions we disagree with."
Couldn't have said it better myself.
"Those with a dogmatic and absolutist disposition have a hard time with such love."
This is (1) irrelevant, and (2) questionable. Of course, I assume you suppose me the dogmatist, and yourself the dove.
--
The modern West is the result of a process begun five centuries ago, and recognising this is neither dogmatic nor inimical to fidelity to the "greatest commandment." The catholicity and unity of Christ's Church was rent apart by the great Protestant "I." It was at that germinative moment that the foundations of the modern West were formed. Individualism, materialism, naturalism.
He must increase, but I must decrease. -John 3:30
For what things a man shall sow, those also shall he reap. -Galatians 6:8
The Reformation began the subjugation of Christ to the individual, and we now reap what was sown.
"The Bible does not give us a hermeneutic of itself, at least not a consistent one. We must look beyond the Bible itself, to philosophy, for hermeneutics. "
I recommend the book "Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics" by Graeme Goldsworthy. He maintains that the Bible does give us a theology of hermeneutics.
Though not as eloquently as Peter Leithart, I have also reviewed Smith's book:
http://www.everygoodpath.net/Bible-Made-Impossible-Christian-Smith-Review
The most significant thing Enns and Smith say about biblicism, I think, is that if the Bible is authoritative, the form the Bible comes to us in should be respected as also inspired. In other words, there may be nothing wrong with filling in the gaps, coming up with lists of what the Bible teaches about gender roles in the family, for instance. But because the Bible itself does not include such a list, making that list a part of your creed (ala Acts29) is inconsistent with the very idea of sola scriptura. And that is precisely what Evangelicals often do. They fail to see the difference between what the Bible is and says and how they understand the Bible. Only an ecclesiastical authority outside the bible itself can make an extra-biblical interpretation a mark of orthodoxy. Because Evangelicals have rejected ecclesiastical authority for the most part, but continued to interpret the Bible, there is a problem.
Where I think Leithart is right is that the process of interpretation itself is inevitable and a good thing for Christians to do. He seems to be afraid that Smith or anyone with a Christo-centric hermeneutic will shortchange the Bible. To use the classic example, the early controversies in the Church had to get the church beyond repeating bible verses at one another. They had to make a decision about what the Bible teaches that would preserve the faith of the church.
Where Smith is right is to say that the absence of any real ecclesiastical authority makes the rampant, multiplying, pluralism of contradictory interpratational traditions an endless problem for divided Evangelicals. There is no way for a decision to be made. No authority to say something is weird or false or unimportant. The position of no ecclesiastical authority (which was not a platform plank of the Reformation but is virtually an Evangelical dogma) has run amok.
Each Christian becomes his own Great Tradition and Bishop and each congregation (with all of its narrowness and idiosyncracies) becomes for all intents and purposes, the Church. Every believer taking Luther's last stand or as Athanasius contra mundi but with no ecclesiastical structure to fight for or against.
An interesting statement. Later when you discuss that the bible primarily is about faith, I can also agree with that. There's a lot of crazy stuff that goes on in the bible, and it takes a lot of faith to believe it all.
@Mike
"BTW, if a biblicist is someone who believes that the Bible "covers everything Christians need to know, and covers everything in such a way that it is possible to construct a “handbook” on nearly any topic." I am not one."
Yup!
You say, "Only an ecclesiastical authority outside the bible itself can make an extra-biblical interpretation a mark of orthodoxy". The arguments you may use to come to this conclusion whether from the Bible or history, is just another infallible interpretation to put along side the other protestant interpretations. You are also one of the 'divisions'.
Most protestants I know believe in "ecclesiastical authority" they just don't believe in infallible ecclesiastical authority.
You say, "To use the classic example, the early controversies in the Church had to get the church beyond repeating bible verses at one another. They had to make a decision about what the Bible teaches that would preserve the faith of the church."
I believe you are talking about the apostles doing that. According to the principle of sola scripture, this is exactly what protestants are doing by listening to the apostles in Scripture - not in some perceived apostolic office.
"Each Christian becomes his own Great Tradition and Bishop and each congregation (with all of its narrowness and idiosyncracies) becomes for all intents and purposes, the Church. Every believer taking Luther's last stand or as Athanasius contra mundi but with no ecclesiastical structure to fight for or against."
Here you overestimated the 'divisions' among protestants who actually hold to sola scripture, and underestimate the divisions in your own tradition. No doubt there are protestants who act as you describe, but it is a generalisation. But a good reminder for Christians to be humble and learn in a community.
With your own fallible interpretation of the evidence to come to your conclusions you are just another voice in the wind. How do you know that the Catholic Church is infallible (without out using your fallible interpretations of the sources)?
†