What I Mean by 'Biblicism'

Not having a Ph.D. in Theology I cannot give you a full dissertation on the definition, abuse, applicability, fairness or use of the term ‘biblicism.’  There are many Christians who believe in the “Bible alone,” but within that group there are many different understandings of that concept.  To speak on behalf of, or in response to, that great variety is beyond my ability.  However, I have found author Christian Smith’s description of biblicism to be a helpful jumping off point and it is the working definition I use.   The comments can be found in his book, “The Bible Made Impossible” which for me was a wonderful read.

Many functional biblicists in America have not heard of the term “biblicism” or do not know that it describes them. That does not matter. What does matter are the real belief system and the practices it animates. Whether called by that name or not, biblicism is prevalent and powerful in American Protestantism, particularly among conservative Protestants... The word “biblicism” turns out to mean different things to different people. It is therefore important to be clear about the meaning I intend here.[1]

Ditto.

By “biblicism” I mean a particular theory about and style of using the Bible that is defined by a constellation of related assumptions and beliefs about the Bible’s nature, purpose, and function. That constellation is represented by ten assumptions or beliefs: 

1. Divine Writing: The Bible, down to the details of its words, consists of and is with God’s very own words written inerrantly in human language. 
2. Total Representation: The Bible represents the totality of God’s communication to and will for humanity, both in containing all that God has to say to humans and in being the exclusive mode of God’s true communication.
3.  Complete Coverage: The divine will about all of the issues relevant to Christian belief and life are contained in the Bible. 
4. Democratic Perspicuity: Any reasonably intelligent person can read the Bible in his or her own language and correctly understand the plain meaning of the text.
5. Commonsense Hermeneutics: The best way to understand biblical texts is by reading them in their explicit, plain, most obvious, literal sense, as the author intended them at face value, which may or may not involve taking into account their literary, cultural, and historical contexts. 
6. Solo Scriptura: The significance of any given biblical text can be understood without reliance on creeds, confessions, historical church traditions, or other forms of larger theological hermeneutical frameworks, such that theological formulations can be built up directly out of the Bible from scratch. 
7. Internal Harmony: All related passages of the Bible on any given subject fit together almost like puzzle pieces into single, unified, internally consistent bodies of instruction about right and wrong beliefs and behaviors. 
8. Universal Applicability: What the biblical authors taught God’s people at any point in history remains universally valid for all Christians at every other time, unless explicitly revoked by subsequent scriptural teaching. 
9. Inductive Method: All matters of Christian belief and practice can be learned by sitting down with the Bible and piecing together through careful study the clear “biblical” truths that it teaches. 
10. Handbook Model: ...although often not stated in explications of biblicist principles and beliefs by its advocates—also commonly characterizes the general biblicist outlook, particularly as it is received and practiced in popular circles: ...The Bible teaches doctrine and morals with every affirmation that it makes, so that together those affirmations comprise something like a handbook or textbook for Christian belief and living, a compendium of divine and therefore inerrant teachings on a full array of subjects—including science, economics, health, politics, and romance.[2]

Smith refers to this as a constellation of ten beliefs, however he does not believe that everyone everywhere who believes in biblicism believes in it the same way.  

Biblicism is not a comprehensively formalized position always explicated in exactly these ten points and subscribed to identically by all adherents. Different people and groups emphasize and express a variety of these points somewhat differently. Some may even downplay or deny particular points here and there—there are, for example, highly biblicist denominations and seminaries that are unapologetically confessional. The point is not that biblicism is a unified doctrine that all of its adherents overtly and uniformly profess. The point, rather, is that this constellation of interrelated assumptions and beliefs informs and animates the outlooks and practices of major sectors of institutional and popular conservative American Protestantism, especially evangelicalism. [3]

So there you have it.  I couldn't say it any better myself... which is why I didn't.  If this topic interests you then again I would like to plug Christian Smith's book, the Bible Made Impossible.  I found it an approachable and good read on the topic.  

[1] Smith, Christian (2011-08-01). Bible Made Impossible, The (Kindle Location 198-204). Brazos Press. Kindle Edition. 

[2] Ibid. (Kindle Locations 205-229)

[3] Ibid. (Kindle Locations 231-236)

Expert on the Experts #3: A Hollow Fulfillment

I spoke earlier about how I was having disagreements with my Church's leadership.  I hope that no one misunderstands me that I dislike the people in my congregation or thought them poor Christians.  On the contrary, they are my friends, my brothers and sisters in Christ and they have helped my wife and I when my wife and I lived hundreds and thousands of miles from our family.  

Things were, for the most part, good then too... even though I was having disagreements.  Our congregation, as much as I love and loved it, had some issues.  Nothing out-of-the-ordinary for congregations like mine; we had questions and aspirations revolving around terms like "seeker sensitive" or "relevant" or "needs-based" or "modern" or cutting-edge worship, or "purpose-driven."  We needed more numbers; not for vanity's sake, but so we could reach souls.  But still, numbers (and what drew them or turned them away) became something of a discussion and slowly it became an obsession.  Our congregation was largely, spiritually immature and (by my own, imperfect and spiritually immature observation) and largely Biblically illiterate.  Some people wanted to take "Baptist" off of our Church name.  A few of them even suggested we take "Church" out of our name.  

Expert on the Experts #2: Am I Guiding my Guide?

Don't misunderstand me I didn't have blind faith in people with degrees, books or popular pulpits.  I had always known that you could never 100% fully trust everything any human said.  We are all fallible, even the most brilliant of us.  But when the experts guided me through my interpretations of Scripture to arrive at the theology I accepted... it all made sense, I could see it so clearly.  But then I noticed something else... if an expert of an opposing theology guided me through the Scriptures I could (often, but certainly not always) see their point of view as well.

So... why was I choosing to listen to experts I had always chose to listen to?  There were other writers and people who were obviously smart who I would allow to influence me but I never considered them to be on my "go-to-list" for real theological answers.  Why had I always steered clear of the more post-modern or emerging Church guys like Rob Bell, Donald Miller or Brian McClaren?  Probably because I knew where they would lead me!  Why had I avoided writers whom I knew to be Methodists, or Pentecostals, or Presbyterians, Catholics or charismatics?  Probably because I knew where they would lead me!

Expert on the Experts #1: Which Expert?

It may seem like a strange subject to discuss but this train of thought was instrumental in whisking me off on a wild search for answers. Prior to thinking this thought I had always been content to keep my searches for truth safely locked inside my cozy house with the comforts of familiar names and authors, no theological loose ends and answers I half-knew already.  After thinking this thought I was startled to hear a booming knock on the door of my cozy house; it was the beckoning of Christian perspectives and traditions I had never before considered, all asking me to come outside and play.  I had rarely played with the other kids on my block.  My cozy cast of familiar experts said there was no reason to give them due consideration.

Good thoughts often come at times that do not seem to suit them.  The particular line of thought that is now on my mind came to me when I was unloading supplies for my youth center's cafe.   Somewhere between hauling flats of Mountain Dew and boxes of Kit-Kats it hit me.  I don't specifically remember what triggered this thought.  Something to do with somebody about something.  Anyhow this something said by this someone had really stuck in my craw.  I remember muttering to myself (as I often do when I get ruffled) the words spoken to me by this someone:  "Oh.  Oh, I see.  So you disagree with [Joe Expert]?"  said this someone.   "Do you think you are smarter than they are?  How many Ph.Ds do you have?  How many books have you written?"  

I was a little upset.  Actually I was pretty stinkin' annoyed.  The nerve of this someone to accuse me of arrogance and pride simply because I disagreed with a so-called expert.  It was a poor argument on their part, I knew it but I didn't have a good reply and I knew in their eyes I had "lost" that round.  Too bad I didn't have a good comeback:  Oh yeah, well the Jerk Store called and they're running out of you!!!!