Christian Smith is a professor at Notre Dame and a prolific author. Smith shares an accolade with F.F. Bruce, N.T. Wright, and Scot McKnight. Each author has written books that made both my 100 Best Christian Books Ever Written and my 100 Best Academic Christian Books lists.
A double threat!
I maintain that one of the best books ever written on church practice (ecclesiology) is Christian Smith’s, Going to the Root. (I quote Smith four times in Reimagining Church.)
And one of the best books on how Christians should approach the Bible is Christian Smith’s new volume, The Bible Made Impossible.
I heartily recommend both books to every follower of Jesus. 
What I like best about Smith’s newest book is that it argues for understanding Scripture through a Christological lens (i.e., employing a Christocentric hermeneutic). When my next book is unveiled later this year, you’ll better understand why I appreciate Smith’s point so much. 
What follows is my interview with Christian Smith. He talks about his new book, answers critics, and unveils his writing routine.
Frank: What motivated you to write “The Bible Made Impossible?”
Christian Smith: The simple fact that Biblicism is widespread and yet impossible, that it cannot really function as it claims to. I don’t think it is good for believers or the church to be trying to operate with theories about the Bible that do not add up, which require various forms of exegetical gymnastics and smoke and mirrors to seem to make work.
If Christian faith is true, as I believe it is, then it has to be reasonably sensible and defensible, not built on impossibilities. My sense is that very many people are vaguely aware of the problems of biblicism but don’t really know how to put their finger on it and what to possibly do about it. So I wrote to help people express an uneasiness they probably already feel.
Frank: Tell us about the title (“The Bible Made Impossible”) . . . what does it mean and what does it not mean?
Christian Smith: The key word is “made.” The Bible itself is not impossible. I am clear in the book that the Bible is God’s inspired Word written and should and does function as a central authority in Christian life. The impossibility comes in when biblicism as a theory is applied to or imposed upon the Bible, as an account of how the Bible ought to function.
I notice that many people confuse the Bible with biblicism, they’re literally unable to distinguish the two. But biblicism is not the Bible itself, but rather a (human) theory about the Bible. And, while it contains some elements of truth and often has very good intentions driving it, as a larger theory it is deeply misguided and I think over the long term destructive.
So, in short, the human theory of biblicism makes the Bible as God’s authoritative written Word impossible to function as the theory demands that it does function. We can and have to do better, and that requires moving into a post-biblicist world.
Frank: In simple terms, define what you mean by “interpretative pluralism” and what does it suggest to us primarily?
Christian Smith: Interpretive pluralism means that (I presume usually) well-meaning, well-educated, smart, serious Bible readers come away from studying scripture believing that it teaches many different things on most theological topics imaginable, both small and large. Everyone says scripture is divinely given to provide the reliable basis for truthful knowledge about Christian faith, church, life, and practice.
But those same people disagree into various camps on most issues about what the Bible actually teaches. That itself undermines the claims to scripture’s authority. How can it be an authority if on nearly every topic we go to it to learn about people say it teaches many different things?
I also argue in my book that this interpretive pluralism is not constrained or marginal, but “pervasive.” It is everywhere on nearly every theological issue imaginable. Often only at a surface level do many people agree, but when it comes down to the real meaning of biblical and theological claims, people end up all over the place, claiming mutually exclusive positions. It is easy to agree that “Jesus saves,” but when it comes down to interpreting the Bible on the hows, whys, whos, etc. then we have pervasive interpretive pluralism. The specifics of this are all spelled out in almost-overkill detail in the book.
Frank: As someone who has written books that challenge the status quo myself, I can easily identify the tool of misrepresentation that people pick up when trying to dismiss a paradigm-shifting work. Given the nature of your book, I’ve seen it misrepresented by some who are threatened by its message. What are the 3 main objections (or misrepresentations) of your book among evangelical Christians, and what are your responses to those objections and/or misrepresentations?
Christian Smith: Before I published this book, a sympathetic and insightful pastor told me, “You know, when people’s basic epistemological paradigms are threatened, even the smartest, most well-meaning people can become irrational, be ready for that, especially if they earn their livelihood by relying on biblicism.”
His prediction has certainly become true. I’ve been very amazed and disappointed by some of the reviews of this book. Some are simply amazing. I have decided strategically to push back on them in most cases, however, to not let them get away with saying crazy and unfounded things simply because they do not want to like the implications of my argument.
One major criticism has been that I am attacking a straw-man, that biblicists are much more sophisticated than I suggest, that only the most extreme simpleheads would believe what I present. On the one hand, my response is: If the shoe fits, wear it, otherwise, what’s the big deal? But I find it telling that people feel the need to defend a theory that they say they do not believe. If my characterization of biblicism is so off, then why do they not simply dismiss and ignore what I write?
I think the response tells that it is not so far off. I think the shoe often fits very well. In which case, the “straw man” charge of simplification and greater sophistication is a diversion. It is a standard rhetorical move in various fields when one has no real reply, to simply object generally, “Well, we’re much different than that, much more sophisticated,” but then never really produce evidence of the greater sophistication. Of course there are more or less sophisticated versions of biblicism, but that itself does not make biblicism as I have described it not a problem.
A second major response to my book has been to attack the second half’s constructive proposals, most of which are oriented around a strongly Christocentric approach. Ironically, some critics insist that they are obviously already highly Christocentric, that any dunce knows that, and then other critics insist that a Christocentric approach is unrealistic and unhelpful. Well, I wonder, which is it? Can’t have it both ways.
My sense is that many critics know that they should be strongly Christocentric and to some extent are, but not consistently and resolutely so. A strong and truly Christocentric reading of scripture requires backing off some other biblicist claims and sensibilities, which feels threatening and raises the anxiety level. So there again I have touched a nerve and so evokes the odd responses I have gotten. A third major criticism I have gotten is that American evangelicalism simply is not so fragmented and divided as I claim it is, that most people mostly agree on most things of importance.
My answer is: bunk. That’s empirically false. It’s just avoiding the facts. So what I’d like to know is this: if evangelicals are really so unified in their biblical and theological views, then why are they so fragmented organizationally? Why the need for literally thousands of different denominations, conventions, associations, etc. etc.? Historically these grew because of doctrinal disagreements.
Given what scripture clearly says about unity and fellowship and agreeing, if evangelicals really agree so much, then why are they so divided? In the end, I find most criticisms of my book unconvincing. Many are simply evasive, diversionary, and reality-denying. In truth, I expected better and have been disappointed by the quality of much of the engagement. It is actually somewhat embarrassing to me that so many evangelical critics have offered such lousy arguments against my book. I would like to have been confronted with better.
Frank: Three cheers on your answer. I’m all too familiar with how some people react to a book they feel threatened by (or haven’t read carefully), and the uncanny extent they will go to misrepresent it. I quickly spotted this after reading some of the reviews on your book, “The Bible Made Impossible,” and that was one of the reasons that provoked me to do this interview with you. That said, when someone finishes your book, what do you want them to walk away with knowing or feeling? What are the big “take aways”?
Christian Smith: I would like readers to fully, honestly confront the fact of pervasive interpretive pluralism and to see that those facts make biblicism an impossible theory to hold, to understand that one can only be a serious biblicist (as I define it) by being intellectually dishonest.
My hope is that this will motivate change. I do not feel the need to be in charge of the change. But change is needed, of one kind or another. People need a better, more realistic, more evangelical, in fact, account of what the Bible is and how it functions as an authority. My hope is that when the change happens, Jesus Christ will shine out from scripture more clearly and forcefully than biblicism tends to allow.
Frank: Anther reason why I’m promoting your book is because I deeply believe in and advocate a Christological approach to the Scriptures. It’s a keynote of my entire ministry. I’ve noted, however, that *many* Christians assume that they look at the Bible Christologically (as if it were a given), when in reality they do not. I know you’ve observed the same thing. Talk about this a bit. What are the benchmarks of an authentic Christological reading of Scripture?
Christian Smith: Yes, this is an important point, as I mentioned above. It has to be said first that I am professionally a sociologist, not a biblical scholar or theologian. However, reading Karl Barth and finally really getting his approach has transformed by understanding of the Word, and scriptures relation to Christ. My personal and scholarly observation is that for many believers the Bible is actually the most real and holy authority there is.
They would never say this, but how things really function is not always how they are admitted and professed. I suspect that for many Christians (despite what they say) God actually seems far off, Christ is a great idea and person and savior, but what seems most real, most accessible, most reliable (and, unfortunately, most controllable) is the Bible. This can easily slip into idolatry. The Bible then becomes for us a “How To” book, when in fact it is a “Who Is” book—telling us who Jesus Christ is, and therefore who God the trinity is, and therefore who we are and what the rest of reality is.
It was not until I studied Barth with a group of great friends for a few years that the light here finally went on. Jesus Christ is the final reality, the ultimate truth, the complete authority. Scripture’s main job it to point us to Christ, like John the Baptist pointing to Jesus. It is of course more than that, but that is centrally what its function is. To say this of course only scratches the surface of the implications and meanings. But it is truly a paradigm shift. And it really, really changes the way to read scripture, once the full force of the idea hits home.
As to benchmarks, it would require a lot more than this venue allows to explore that adequately. But in essence, every reading of scripture must be through the lens of the revelation of God in Jesus Christ, of the fact that God is reconciling the world to himself in Christ. Every imperative (“You shall (not)…”) must come after and be more fundamentally grounded on The Indicative, namely, the reality of Jesus Christ. Otherwise, it all goes out of whack very quickly.
Frank: Looking at the initial sales of this book, how does it compare to your many other titles? (I ask because sales numbers are a good measure of interest in the subject.)
Christian Smith: It’s too soon to say. My sense is that it has gotten a lot of attention and is selling well. The ranking on Amazon.com is good. But I have not yet seen any concrete sales numbers yet. That said, I hope it gets widespread attention and close reading.
Frank: As a writer myself, I’m particularly interested in this question. Talk about your writing routines. What does a normal day and week look like in your writing?
Christian Smith: Some writers are “chippers” (they write a little bit every day, chipping away at the project) and some are “bingers” (they don’t write until they have big blocks of time and inspiration, then they write like mad). I tend to be both a chipper and a binger. Normally, I will spend some years reading, thinking, and talking out the ideas of a book, then set down and start writing. Even so, much of my thinking is not really worked out until my fingers are on the keyboard. I think best when writing, not in the abstract. Exactly how this all plays out depends upon my school schedule.
Some semesters I teach a lot and can write very little. Others I have more free time and write a lot. I also write a lot during summers and holidays. Once I have an idea that I think is worth publishing and people need to read it, that pushes me very hard to get it done. I also go in phases when I “submerge” myself in writing and don’t pay much attention to anything else. I even let those I work with know that I’m “going under” for some time but will resurface in due time.
But then there are other phases when I can only devote an hour or two to a writing project. In short, chipping does not provide enough time and attention for me to get things done. But binging is too uneven and “lumpy” to really make sustained progress. So I try to do both.
Order The Bible Made Impossible by Christian Smith on Amazon (hardcover)
Order The Bible Made Impossible by Christian Smith on Kindle
See also:
Interview with Scot McKnight (1)
Interview with Scot McKnight (2)
Interview with Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove
Interview with David Fitch (1)
Interview with David Fitch (2)
Coming Soon: Shameless Promotion Day . . . your chance to promote your blog or website . . . one day only. Thus subscribe so you don’t miss the opportunities. Email subscribers will also receive the Next Reformation seminar free.
You can find Church Dogmatics online.
My favorite Barth quote is that the doctrine of biblical inerrancy is to lay a foundation other than Christ.
Frank,
Thanks for sharing your interview with Christian Smith here. When I first read your interview back in February I picked up a copy of Christian’s book and read it with interest. I now understand what he means by “biblicism” and “pervasive interpretive pluralism.” I must confess that I have been guilty of treating the Bible as a handbook of God’s wisdom on every subject that it touches on, rather than reading it as a testimony of Jesus Christ that centers on the Kingdom and Reconciliation that He came to bring through His life, death, resurrection and ascension.
I really like the “Jesus Lens” hermeneutic that Christian Smith suggests. It makes sense to understand all of Scripture through the lens of the teachings of Jesus as recorded in the four canonical gospels. It took some humility to read this book, because I needed to lay aside some old ideas about the Bible that I had been very attached to. However in the light of Christian Smith’s insightful writings I found that my own interpretations could no longer hold water.
I am hopeful that other scholars will continue this work and will help to develop the “Jesus Lens” hermeneutic. Thank you Frank for bringing this book to my attention.
Here We Come Lord Jesus! – http://drod55.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/here-we-come-lord-jesus/
I Don’t Need My Wife — http://bryandupuis.com/2012/02/14/i-dont-need-my-wife/
Call to the Church – We are One Family: http://thoughtsonchristianstuff.wordpress.com/2010/02/16/call-to-the-church-we-are-one-family/
Before anything else, let me say that a) I do not know Mr. Smith personally and b) I recognize the limits of internet communication. What I am about to say is my response to what I have read above, and I know that I am reading this through my own biases. It is not my intent to judge Mr. Smith’s intentions and I am certain what he says here is just a fraction of his overall message. However, all I can do is go off of what is here and how it hits me.
I am not a blogger. I am not a “Christian celebrity.” I am not a “mega-pastor.” I’m just a guy trying to follow Jesus. But I have had many discussions with people regarding Smith’s idea of Biblicism, PIP, etc. In each of these discussions, I have stated that Smith’s “Biblicism” is a straw man. As such, I was really looking forward to reading his response. I am saddened to see that Smith’s basic response is to accuse me of being “irrational,” selfishly motivated (“earn their livelihood by relying on Biblicism”), overly defensive (“why defend a theory you don’t believe”), “lousy,” having “no real reply,” not really having any “evidence,” and basically just being so dumb that he is “embarrassed” by me.
How many different ways did you insult your critics, Mr. Smith? I long for the day when a Christian writer – no matter their positions – will respond to their critics by carefully understanding the basis for the criticism and looking at their work again with humility. Even when our critics are rude, they may have something valuable for us. You don’t have to look very long at proverbs to see the value of taking criticism.
I would be happy to lay out why I believe Smith’s “Biblicism” is a straw man (in fact, I think his own arguments prove that point). And I would love to have an honest and loving discussion where we could genuinely listen to one another and allow our views to be influenced by the dialogue. But his response here makes me feel like he is not interested in dialogue, in processing through his own claims through another viewpoint. Rather, it sounds like he simply wants me to accept what he says without question and,if I don’t then I’m just a fool.
[The final part of this post was removed from the Blog Manager because it violated the rules of moderation. It attacked Mr. Smith's affiliation as a Catholic and did so in a snarky, degrading manner.]
Dustin: This is from The Blog Manager:
“Dear Dustin, I would normally delete a post like this because it violates the rules of moderation which are posted at the very top of this blog but I retained most of it to instruct you and others on this blog. I read Christian’s answer several times and at no point did he attack you, criticize you, or demean you. He simply said that “some” of his reviewers treated him with disrespect and misrepresented his arguments. You say you would be happy to lay out why you believe biblicism is a straw man. Please do so. This blog is a safe place so neither Christian Smith will treat you with disrespect just as anyone else (including you) will not be permitted to disrespect others. This blog is about having civil discussions without attacking others personally. I look forward to your laying out of why you believe Christian’s idea of biblicism is a straw man.
Sincerely, The Blog Manager.”
Hello,
I sympathize with Smith’s critique. I have also appreciated Barth’s christocentrism. However, how does one have a christological hermeneutic and deal with the problem of supersessionism?
Thanks,
Isaac Gross
If you are up for it, give Douglas Campbell’s “The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul” a read. The problem of supercessionism arises with trying to read “forward” with a salvation history model. If one reads “backward” with an apocalyptic model, supercessionism does not present itself. The challenge with doing this is that it requires the biblical scholar to also be a theologian, and not all biblical scholars (perhaps very few) are on board with that idea.
Thanks Alan,
I don’t know if it is possible, but could you summarize (with a little more than what you have said already)? Have any Jewish theologians engaged this idea of Cambells?
I don’t know if any Jewish theologians are in conversation with Campbell, but his book has been a hand grenade thrown into the middle of Pauline scholarship.
I think the best way to summarize Campbell is to do this: read Romans 5-8 first and then read Romans 1-4. And then ask if they are saying the same thing or if they are saying something different. Ask which passage is the christocentric passage. Ask if both are gospel, or if one or the other is gospel. And then read Romans 9-11. If read salvation-historically, the issue of supercessionism will appear in this passage. Read apocalyptially, the dominant reality of the election of Jesus Christ is what makes sense of the election of Israel and the call of Israel will remain what it always was–irrevocable.
Campbell’s radical yet intriguing suggestion is that Paul did not write Romans 1:18-32, and that Romans 1-4 is largely a discourse between Paul and the teacher of a false gospel–a false gospel built from the ground up (foundationalist). This radical suggestion actually settles numerous issues that have plagued Pauline studies throughout the modern era. And when Romans is read this way, there is much greater continuity with the letters to the Ephesians and Colossians.
What if Ephesians instead of Romans just happened to be the first letter of Paul’s we encounter in the New Testament, and then Colossians? What would be the gospel? Instead of trying to make the rest of the letters fit Romans, can Romans be made to fit the rest of the letters? Give it a try and see what happens.
This book is on my birthday wish list, so hopefully I’ll get to dive into it next week.
This is thought-provoking AND faith-helping. Sadly, those always don’t go in tandem. I’m fascinated by academic approaches to faith. This looks great – can’t wait to read more, by Smith, and now you, too, Frank. Thanks so much! Will definitely re-tweet this.
What do you think the best book by Karl Barth is to read on this subject, I do not know that there is one, but the bast one or two?
Start with the one on this list: http://www.ptmin.org/academic
thanks so much for this! I was going to ask the same question related to Karl Barth…
Yea, I have been kind of reading through his book on Romans, but I was not sure if their would have been one you would have recommended more. Also you should try to do an interview with James D.G. Dunn, that would be awesome.
Although the conversation stretches throughout the entire 13 volumes of the Church Dogmatics, Barth deals at length with the Word of God and its relationship to the Bible in CD I.1 and CD IV.3.1.
So that is Church Dogmatics Vol. 4.3 or what, when I look them up on amazon it goes like Vol 4.3.2 Sections 70-71 can you not just buy the whole volume or what. If you could maybe include a link to the source of both of those that would be awesome.
Thanks
Take the plunge and get the whole thing for the incredible bargain of $119 from CBD. Link here: http://www.christianbook.com/church-dogmatics-14-volumes/karl-barth/9781598564426/pd/564426?item_code=WW&netp_id=795708&event=ESRCQ&view=details
I’m very happy to see a book come out to expose the real problem that surrounds christianity-the Bible has become an idol just like the church-the only idol we need in our christian life is an indwelling Lord who fulfills jermiah 31 and ezekiel 36–Jesus Christ is the Christian life in us-realize your crucifiction to self effort and by trust let God’s Spirit live out his divine life thru you using you for his own glory.
(Whew!)
I’m exhausted. I read through a few of the criticisms of the book as well as his response to them. I’ve gathered that, one, I need to read the book for myself, and two, I cannot wait for the Lord’s return! I get so tired of all the “family” disagreements, attacking one another, etc. There are things I can agree with on both sides of the argument, and there are things I appreciate about both sides. On the other hand, I am thankful for the freedom that I have begun to have, embrace, receive, and feel as I have moved towards a more organic approach, and can’t help but wonder if some of those who hold so tightly to their ways would just let go, they would experience something similar? I was very entrenched in the “Young, Restless, and Reformed” ways the past few years, and am grateful for the things I learned, but where I am now seems to be a whole new level of freedom in Christ.
Anyways…all that to say that I am thankful for Frank, Neil Cole, Alan Hirsch, and many others who have taken a lot of the “beatings” to help people like me experience God in a deeper way.
Many Christians are resonating with the statements in Beyond Evangelical: Parts II and IV. Again, it’s not at all about any form of “church.” That’s not even one of the issues that beyond evangelicals are passionate about. It’s about enthroning Jesus Christ authentically and knowing Him deeply, treating others the way we want to be treated. That can happen in any form of church. I’m happy we have Christians from all different church forms on the blog. Christian Smith is a Catholic, N.T. Wright an Anglican, and Leonard Sweet a Methodist, just to name a few featured guests.
Agreed. I have enjoyed all the posts in the Beyond Evangelical series, and have shared them with others. I have also enjoyed learning a little bit more about these other men you named, and seeing that this isn’t just related to a “specific camp”.
It’s hard to put into words. Am I just being naive? I just don’t understand why there has to be so much disagreement among brothers and sisters. I guess the older I get, the more things I see and experience, just makes me long for Jesus more and for the new heaven and new earth, and to cry out “Come quickly Lord Jesus!”
Thankfully, on a smaller scale, I have begun to experience “heaven on earth” by being a part of organic community life.
I went back and reread parts II and IV. A good and much needed reminder. It is so easy to get distracted and discouraged by (some) things we read on the internet. Thanks again for your words and encouragement!
Frank, thanks for this. I had met CS a couple of years ago and had a wonderful conversation… I really think something is really shifting in the church today… a very healthy shift!
So profound but easily lost by many of us…
“… in essence, every reading of scripture must be through the lens of the revelation of God in Jesus Christ, of the fact that God is reconciling the world to himself in Christ. Every imperative (“You shall (not)…”) must come after and be more fundamentally grounded on The Indicative, namely, the reality of Jesus Christ. Otherwise, it all goes out of whack very quickly.”
I’m intrigued. Purchasing the book now. Thanks for the thoughtful and well done interview.
I just finished reading The Bible Made Impossible and I thought it was excellent. I agree with the thorough dismantling of the biblicist approach. My main question relates to the Christocentric approach. I try to approach scripture that way but I don’t quite grasp what it looks like, especially with texts in which it appears to be really forced to interpret through the lens of Christ (some of the prophets, historical texts, Proverbs, etc.). Where could I find more about the Christocentric hermeneutic?
Dave: Wait until the Fall. Hint, hint . . . you won’t be disappointed.
I’m not really sure what Biblicism is and how it can effect the way we read and understand the Bible.
I guess we must all be affected in some way by it through teaching we have received during our Christian walk.
I’m particulary interested to find out exactly what “pervasive interpretive pluralism” is.
Since reading “From eternity to here” I have been trying to see Christ more through my daily Bible reading. I’m hoping this book will help me with that.
Thanks for the recommendation
Another book to read. I need to find some more time from somewhere.
A great big THANK YOU to Christian Smith for this book, which I read a few months ago! The Lord has used it to liberate me from some thinking about Scripture that I now see was getting in the way of seeing Jesus with greater clarity. It has been a paradigm shift for me that is producing good fruit, and I am very grateful! I’ve been impacted so much by this book that the small group that gathers in my home is now going through it together.
I am grateful as well to you, Frank, for your Christ-centered approach to Scripture that has impacted me. Thank you for this interview with Smith.