The Bible Made Impossible: Why Biblicism Is Not a Truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture
By Christian Smith
Product Description (Amazon)
Biblicism, an approach to the Bible common among some American evangelicals, emphasizes together the Bible's exclusive authority, infallibility, clarity, self-sufficiency, internal consistency, self-evident meaning, and universal applicability. Acclaimed sociologist Christian Smith argues that this approach is misguided and unable to live up to its own claims. If evangelical biblicism worked as its proponents say it should, there would not be the vast variety of interpretive differences that biblicists themselves reach when they actually read and interpret the Bible.
Smith describes the assumptions, beliefs, and practices of evangelical biblicism and sets it in historical, sociological, and philosophical context. He explains why it is an impossible approach to the Bible as an authority and provides constructive alternative approaches to help evangelicals be more honest and faithful in reading the Bible. Far from challenging the inspiration and authority of Scripture, Smith critiques a particular rendering of it, encouraging evangelicals to seek a more responsible, coherent, and defensible approach to biblical authority.From the Inside Flap
"Many books have been written either defending or detracting from an evangelical view of the Bible. Christian Smith, as a trained sociologist, offers a much-needed perspective: explaining evangelical biblicism as a sociological phenomenon. Smith demonstrates, respectfully but critically, that the type of biblicism that often characterizes evangelicalism cannot account for how scripture itself behaves. Biblicism is retained, however, because of its sociological value for 'maintaining safe identity boundaries.' Smith's analysis of the problem of biblicism and his offer of a way forward are important contributions to the current developments surrounding evangelicalism and the Bible."--Peter Enns, author, Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament
"Christian Smith plainly says what so many others have been thinking or implying for some time--namely, that many strands of evangelicalism believe things about the Bible and theology that are simply impossible. Smith exposes the scholastic alchemy that holds this fragile theological edifice together and helps us understand that serious damage is done to the church and its witness when we perpetuate the errors of biblicism."--Kenton L. Sparks, Eastern University
"Smith vigorously presents a compelling possibility: The Bible could be more alive, the church could be more unified, those of us who care deeply about scripture could be less fearful about some collapse of authority and more honest about what is actually in the Bible if we simply began to listen with more humility and openness to what it is God seems most concerned to reveal. A great book for this time in the life of evangelicalism."--Debbie Blue, pastor, House of Mercy; author, Sensual Orthodoxy and From Stone to Living Word
Confessions of a Bible Thumper:
My Homebrewed Quest for a Reasoned Faith
Whether you are a restless evangelical or consider yourself spiritual-but-not religious, you'll enjoy this spiritual memoir and vision for progressive Christianity. Michael Camp was on a tenacious quest for a vibrant and reasonable faith in God. Thinking he found it among evangelicals, he eventually faced deepening doubts and uncovered eight startling discoveries that turned conservative Christian theology on its head—and himself into a heretic among his peers.
Without running into the arms of angry atheists or throwing the baby out with the baptismal bathwater, Camp reveals a vision for an open, broad-minded faith in Christ, ironically based on a fair exegetical reading of the Bible and the history of the early church. His conclusions are eye opening, yet rarely stereotypical.
My Homebrewed Quest for a Reasoned Faith
Whether you are a restless evangelical or consider yourself spiritual-but-not religious, you'll enjoy this spiritual memoir and vision for progressive Christianity. Michael Camp was on a tenacious quest for a vibrant and reasonable faith in God. Thinking he found it among evangelicals, he eventually faced deepening doubts and uncovered eight startling discoveries that turned conservative Christian theology on its head—and himself into a heretic among his peers.
Without running into the arms of angry atheists or throwing the baby out with the baptismal bathwater, Camp reveals a vision for an open, broad-minded faith in Christ, ironically based on a fair exegetical reading of the Bible and the history of the early church. His conclusions are eye opening, yet rarely stereotypical.
You can read an excerpt here: Pub Theology
*WARNING: Camp’s heresies are hard to detect. He critiques
both religious and secular dogma. He actually thinks for himself.
What a concept. While deploring the Religious Right, he
is also known to good-naturely mock Richard Dawkins fans
who buy A-is-for-Atheist pins and is sympathetic to intelligent
design theory. Besides Jesus (and gay activist Mel White and
author Frank Schaeffer), one of his heroes is another brand of
atheist—Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Somali champion of Muslim women’s
rights. Go figure. (Hint: she’s better looking than Dawkins).
Then go read his screeds and forthcoming book.
both religious and secular dogma. He actually thinks for himself.
What a concept. While deploring the Religious Right, he
is also known to good-naturely mock Richard Dawkins fans
who buy A-is-for-Atheist pins and is sympathetic to intelligent
design theory. Besides Jesus (and gay activist Mel White and
author Frank Schaeffer), one of his heroes is another brand of
atheist—Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Somali champion of Muslim women’s
rights. Go figure. (Hint: she’s better looking than Dawkins).
Then go read his screeds and forthcoming book.
8 comments:
I may be related to the moron Camp, but regardless of that, the REAL following of SCRIPTURAL FAITH is a SPIRITUAL EXPERIENCE.
It is not the spirit of this world, but the Spirit of the Creator.
It cannot be understood by those of the world. Sorry if that offends anyone.
Its not my 'convenient' answer, its directly FROM the scriptures:
Rom. 8:5: For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
1 Cor. 2:14: But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: NEITHER CAN HE KNOW THEM, because they are spiritually discerned.
Its spiritual.
Try it, you'll like it!
Calling the scriptures, the 'Bible' is like calling the internet, the 'algorenet' (Al Gore net). The relationship is exactly the same, NONE AT ALL.
'Byblos' was the Phoenician port where paper was imported into Greece; their goddess 'Byblos' (various spellings) is the patron of that city. Hence, Biblos = Bible from 500AD onward.
Imagine calling 'the WORD' after a pagan god? How arbitrary and insulting. What blind ignorance! The Serpent's handiwork can be seen EVERYWHERE!
Its ALWAYS called the 'scriptures' or the 'writings' in the canon.
Thanks for the book referrals. I'll put them on my wishlist at Amazon.
I recently read "The Human Faces of God" and found it quite interesting and challenging.
The fundamentalist view of scriptures in its own way poses a challenge to faith that was ripping me apart while in the WWCG. I suppose it's case of the emperor's new clothes that those who reside in the fundamentalist camp have more to fear from their own internal viewpoints than any supposed threat posed by nonbelievers.
Rom. 8:5: For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
This statement is also true of all major world religions. Buddhism would have no argument with this either. Paul, being somewhat of a gnostic (If he was a true Pharisee, he was like no other)in background or mystic of sorts, did seem to also have a bit of a go with the flesh as he admitted or at least hinted at never really coming clean and saying what it was. Something about learning how to control one's member I believe and having a bit of a time with it.
1 Cor. 2:14: But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: NEITHER CAN HE KNOW THEM, because they are spiritually discerned.
Again, this could be true but then it appears that if he can't know them, he can't know them because he doesn't know them. If one can't cook up one's own spiritual discernment and it comes from an outside Godsource, then it is not one's fault that they can't know it..yet or ever.
'It's spiritual"
Sounds like something Ronald Weinland says when he gets himself in a corner after literally telling others what literally is going to happen and when and then literally doesn't :) This is what one says to keep the schtick going when one goofs up.
Its Spiritual said...
Try it, you'll like it!
I did, and I didn't...
So the word Biblios is pagan! Who gives a rat's ass??????? Only those entrenched in the deviant legalistic bullshit of Armstrongism have to label everything pagan.
I have never witnessed any "spiritual discernment" while part of Armstrongism. The so called "educated e;lite" of the church are intellectually, morally and spiritually bankrupt.
I would much rather read about peoples experience who struggle with the Bible and what it says while still remaining faithful, than read any of the bile printed by the COGs who take it all as 100% literal. When it is all laid out in black and white there is no room for questions, struggles, or discernment. That is why Armstrongism is a dead cult than is dissolving into nothingness.
Has anyone besides a few even bothered to check up on the use and meaning of the dreaded word "PAGAN"? Must we take everyone else's traditional assumption that "PAGAN" means something terribly anti-creator? A simple word study may give one a different understanding.
As soon as I can sell my house in the big metropolis I live in, I'm moving to the country where I'll be 5-7 miles to the nearest small town. I'll then become a real PAGAN, i.e., a country dweller, a country bumpkin, a red-neck if you will.
But I suppose it's to convenient to continue to use that word in the traditional sense which has been used incorrectly for several hundred years in order to maintain control of the uninformed, uneducated, lowly subjects under the church's authority. Or is it that if a concept doesn't agree with our personal or church doctrine or idea then it must be "PAGAN". With continued study and searching for a better understanding, one may find some things once thought to be "PAGAN" may be more in line with giving a better understanding than one may think. I know I have.
Post a Comment