The Bible Made Impossible - Chapter 3(b)

Chapter 3 - Some Relevant History, Sociology, and Psychology
The first half of this chapter dealt with the historical roots of underlying philosophical assumptions in American biblicism (see previous post). In the second half of chapter 3, Christian Smith deals with what he believes are reasons why biblicists are not troubled by the fact that there are multiple, divergent interpretations of the same biblical texts by sincere and capable evangelicals while at the same time making the claim that the Bible is easy for anyone to understand and that it speaks with one unified voice.

Why Pervasive Interpretive Pluralism is Not More Troubling to Biblicists: Sociological and Psychological Conjectures


Smith suggests that if what he's presenting is true, there ought to be great concern over it among biblicists; however, for the most part, there is none. The following are his conjectures about why this might be (I will merely "scratch the surface" of what he says about each of these):

1. The structure of social networks among biblicists. The technical word for this in sociology is "homophily (love for and attraction to what is similar to oneself)...one of the strongest forces operating in social life." Because of this force, we tend to live in relatively small worlds with those with whom we feel comfortable. Consequently, we lose touch with the distinctive beliefs and lifestyles of people in other "worlds". This serves to bolster the biblicist's sense of being correct in his way of viewing Scripture and protects him from the "existential discomfort of having to deal with contradictory beliefs, values, and commitments that such ties normally entail." (This reality is true, of course, of all social networks, not only biblicists.)
2. The common tendency to minimize the real differences of interpretation and the importance of those differences. The claim that the disagreements are about minor issues is like a member of a conflict-ridden family telling a friend that her family gets along pretty well. It's a form of denial since "disagreements among biblicists (and other Bible-referring Christians) about what the Bible teaches on most issues, both essential and secondary matters, are many and profound. If biblicists hope to maintain intellectual honesty and internal consistency, they must acknowledge them and explain them."
3. Another possible reason for not being troubled by biblicism may be that being at odds with another group can actually give my group a sense of identity and importance. For example, the "Duke and North Carolina basketball programs need each other, even as they hate each other, simply to help promote the being and identity of Duke and NC." Smith argues that it is this reality that has given many American evangelical groups their vitality. If so, he says there are consequences for those groups involved:
1. Biblicists may subconsciously resist the idea settling their differences since they are dependent on those that don't agree with them to sustain their existence and sense of distinctiveness. (It's common that entire organized ministries are birthed around a particular "revelation" from Scripture, and that revelation is the group's distinctive identity; if all believers interpreted the Scripture in a similar way concerning this revelation, there would be no need for "my" ministry to exist.)
2. Secondly, the inevitable effect of building this "in-group identity and commitment difference from out-groups" is that they no longer take the claims and positions of those out-groups seriously; in other words, there's no genuine attempt or desire to understand or honor the others but rather, the point becomes one of remaining on guard so as not to be contaminated by the out-group nor allow them to gain influence.
3. Summarizing this point, Smith says, "...various Christian groups 'benefit' from conflict, disunity, and fragmentation...This...is highly problematic when considered in light of what the Bible says about Christian unity."
4.  Another possible reason could be fear of "ecumenism," which to many evangelicals sounds like liberal Protestantism which is considered bad. "Better...to be divided in absolute commitment to truth than to be unified in flaccid, liberal compromise...We may be utterly fragmented, biblicists tell themselves, but at least we have not compromised."
5. The final possible reason biblicists aren't troubled by the problem of "pervasive interpretive pluralism" falls more in the area of psychology than sociology. Smith suggests that there is a particular need within biblicism to create order and security in an environment that would otherwise be chaotic and in error. This aversion to disorder and falsehood is common among humans but stronger in some than in others. The author suspects that biblicism is attractive to many because of this fear. He proposes that the heritage that we have of the modernist-fundamentalist battles of the early 20th century could have a hidden effect on our desire to keep things orderly and certain.

While this chapter is the author's conjectures over the biblicist problem, I found it enlightening for me personally for two reasons: one, as I read this, I recognized that I have been participant in some of them - this caused me to cringe at times and to realize afresh my dependence on the great mercy and forgiveness of the Lord toward me; and second, it gave form to some things I've understood intuitively but haven't had confidence in. I am grateful for this.

Next week we'll move on to chapter four, which is the final chapter dealing with the problems of biblicism before going on to the "positive" second half of the book!