If the modern scholarship is to be believed, Biblicism has died. It has been buried and never shall rise again. In Christian Smith’s The Bible Made Impossible, he argues that Biblicism is not truly an evangelical reading of Scripture. Smith asserts that we cannot expect the Bible to be something it was not intended to be. He defines Biblicism as “A theory about the Bible that emphasizes together its exclusive authority…self-evident meaning, and universal applicability.”
According to Smith, you cannot make coherent statements about texts since this process produces variant forms of interpretations. Therefore, divergence in interpretation and applicability disprove the evangelical assertion that the Bible is true and authoritative.
Author Rachel Held Evans summarizes Biblicism as “perhaps best reflected in the old adage, ‘God said it, I believe it, that settles it.’” But is this Biblicism? Or is it just another modern attempt to deviate from the orthodox claim to Biblical authority? We ought to be aware of the isms, but has Biblicism been properly understood or too easily dismissed?
Professor John Frame, a philosopher and theologian, argues for a form of Biblicism that avoids the simplification of Smith and Evans. Frame elevates the theological discourse to a more nuanced conversation in his essay, In Defense of Something Close to Biblicism. He concludes:
“Scripture, therefore, must be primary in relation to history, sociology, or any other science. It is Scripture that supplies the norms of these sciences and which governs their proper starting points, methods, and conclusions.”
While the Bible may suffer at the hands of leaders and laity, proper Biblicism establishes the primacy of the Bible in relation to all other endeavors. Divergence in views will continue until the Second Coming, but only Biblicism properly understood can provide comfort to the Christian interpreter of the first century and today. God has unmistakably spoken in His revelation and what He says is the basis for all reality.
Three Kinds of Biblicisms
Biblicism needs to be distinguished accurately. It seems wise to make a distinction between three forms of Biblicism. Here is the basic outline and perhaps it may be expanded in another article. I propose three types of Biblicism within evangelical theology: 1) Fundamentalist Biblicism (FB), 2) Pietistic Biblicism (PB), and 3) Ecclesiastical Biblicism (EB).
First, the evangelical church produces a fundamentalist Biblicism. In this view, the text of the Bible becomes a sea filled with proof texts. Theologies are not developed through careful study and systematic analysis, but by pointing to isolated Bible verses. Therefore, John 3:16 functions as the sole key to the debate over the extent of the atonement. “What’s to argue? The Bible is clear, and there is no debate; Jesus said it, I believe it.” Perhaps this is what Evans has in mind in her definition of Biblicism. Advocates of this FB perspective are also skeptical of academia. The fundamentalists of the early 20th century failed to engage the modernists in academia because the modernists were attempting to blow up the rigid models of interpretation offered by fundamentalist interpreters.
In the last forty years, the debate over Bible translations has risen to a new level within Fundamentalist circles. FB fears the text itself can be corrupted by newer translations. The vast majority of fundamentalist pastors and teachers dogmatically affirm a preference for the Majority Text as a way to preserve the actual text of the Bible without its many “corruptions.” Various colleges around the country are established and funded for the sole purpose of preserving a particular English version as the one and only true version of the English language. This reaction is a clear consequence of FB.
Second, the evangelical church produces its own version of pietistic Biblicism. In this view, the text of the Bible serves to advance moralistic ideals. The Bible becomes a tour through characters. The David/Samson narrative becomes a model for defeating the big problems of life. The text conveys moral lessons to encourage us in our journey. Indeed, this model of Biblicism appeals to the gnostic tendencies of the evangelical age. “Jesus as our example” becomes the mantra of this school of Biblicism. Several megachurch pastors thrive in this model. “How to Succeed in your Job” or “Five Steps to a Successful Marriage” are common themes in this form of Biblicism. Referencing Church history is despised as an attempt to take us back into the past instead of moving forward.
We can also add that such models form and inform a political Biblicism. This view uses the Bible as an opportunity to sloganize; Bible verses are snatched out of context and used as one-liners for political and ideological gain.
Finally, the best of evangelical theology produces an ecclesiastical Biblicism. In this view, interpretation of the text will be diverse even within the same tradition, but the interpreter is encouraged to look outside his own opinions for hermeneutical guidance. There will always be differing views of the same texts, but the Church urges interpreters to continue to search the riches of the Gospel in God’s revelation. Christians look at the text within a certain tradition, and they are free to question that tradition whenever that tradition appears to contradict the clear rationale of the passage. This is the best of Protestant Sola Scriptura.
We can observe a distinction between Solo Scriptura and Sola Scriptura. Solo Scriptura puts the Bible as a tabula rasa (blank slate) expecting the interpreter to analyze it neutrally unbound by any lens. Sola Scriptura says that tradition informs our interpretation, though it does not trump it. The Bible is not threatened by tradition, but its authority can be strengthened by tradition. EB is Sola Scriptura. It does not compete with tradition nor is it submissive to tradition but its inherent authority is accentuated by tradition.
While fundamentalist and pietistic Biblicisms are to be avoided, Ecclesiastical Biblicism is to be endorsed as a means to restoring respect for the written Word. Evangelicals are to be skeptical about interpreters whose conclusions do not submit to the broader tradition and to avoid interpretations which collide with the tried and tested creeds of the Church. In EB, pastors and parishioners are encouraged to test the spirits of interpretation and that process inevitably means working through this process with others.
