PERVASIVE INTERPRETIVE PLURALISM IS THE PROVERBIAL MASSIVE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM OF EVANGELICAL BIBLICISM THAT NOBODY TALKS ABOUT
- Christian Smith
I am currently reading Christian Smith's "The Bible made Impossible" which is about why biblicism is not truly the best way for Christians to read the Bible. Biblicism is to be the knock down answer to all questions and problems we face in life. Whatever the issue or problem, the Bible has the answer. Biblicism often is guilty of prooftexting the Bible because of its own latent dogmatism. Christian Smith's thesis is simple. If biblicism is true, why are there so many diverse and plural interpretations of the Bible? Smith is unswerving to let the reader know and beware that no matter how one tries to duck or get by this issue, the problem still persists nevertheless.
This brings me back to Francis Chan and Preston Springle book. An interesting illustration to apply to discipleship and life questions is following God's will. Chan and Springle make a remarkable illustration of how Samson broke God's "moral will" by loving a pagan woman but followed God's "decreed will" which prompted Samson to fight against the Philistines (see Judges 14:4). But doesn't this sound like we are pitting God's moral will against His decreed will? And where does one find these kind of distinctions and divisions within Scripture itself?
Although I find Chan's and Springle's observation here intriguing, I can't help but wonder if foreign categories and a some kind of systematic theology is leading the interpretation of Scripture rather than Scripture leading our systematic theology. And how does this bear out in life? God's decreed will trumps His moral will at times? It seems like there are a whole lot of baggage being brought into this discussion that actually isn't from Scripture itself. So coming back to Smith's interpretative pluralism, doesn't this become just one more interpretation among many others of the same biblical text? Biblicism always sounds good but it does appear when the rubber hits the road, the problems are legion.
- Christian Smith
I am currently reading Christian Smith's "The Bible made Impossible" which is about why biblicism is not truly the best way for Christians to read the Bible. Biblicism is to be the knock down answer to all questions and problems we face in life. Whatever the issue or problem, the Bible has the answer. Biblicism often is guilty of prooftexting the Bible because of its own latent dogmatism. Christian Smith's thesis is simple. If biblicism is true, why are there so many diverse and plural interpretations of the Bible? Smith is unswerving to let the reader know and beware that no matter how one tries to duck or get by this issue, the problem still persists nevertheless.
This brings me back to Francis Chan and Preston Springle book. An interesting illustration to apply to discipleship and life questions is following God's will. Chan and Springle make a remarkable illustration of how Samson broke God's "moral will" by loving a pagan woman but followed God's "decreed will" which prompted Samson to fight against the Philistines (see Judges 14:4). But doesn't this sound like we are pitting God's moral will against His decreed will? And where does one find these kind of distinctions and divisions within Scripture itself?
Although I find Chan's and Springle's observation here intriguing, I can't help but wonder if foreign categories and a some kind of systematic theology is leading the interpretation of Scripture rather than Scripture leading our systematic theology. And how does this bear out in life? God's decreed will trumps His moral will at times? It seems like there are a whole lot of baggage being brought into this discussion that actually isn't from Scripture itself. So coming back to Smith's interpretative pluralism, doesn't this become just one more interpretation among many others of the same biblical text? Biblicism always sounds good but it does appear when the rubber hits the road, the problems are legion.
No comments:
Post a Comment