\n<\/p>\n
I just received my copy of Christian Smith\u2019s\u00a0The Bible Made Impossible<\/em> (Brazos) and am eager to alert interested readers about it. Smith is William R. Kenan Jr. Professor of Sociology at\u00a0University\u00a0of Notre Dame, and his book looks at evangelical\u00a0views of\u00a0Scripture\u00a0from a sociological perspective.<\/p>\n To summarize, Smith shows how evangelical \u201cbiblicism\u201d (his term) crumbles under its own weight, but continues to survive\u00a0because\u00a0of its historical role in establishing evangelicalism\u2019s sociological\u00a0boundary\u00a0markers.<\/p>\n This is why\u00a0evangelicals\u00a0have had a history of bending over backwards to protect their doctrine in the face of clear\u00a0evidence\u00a0to the contrary.<\/p>\n Smith\u2019s central contention is that \u201cpervasive interpretive pluralism\u201d renders moot\u00a0evangelical\u00a0presumptions\u00a0of the nature and\u00a0authority\u00a0of Scripture. Smith means that since the Bible clearly \u201cteaches very\u00a0different\u00a0things about the most significant subjects\u201d and since highly competent biblical\u00a0interpreters\u00a0come to very different conclusions about the same texts, assertions about the Bible\u2019s inerrant authority ring hollow (pp. x-xi).<\/p>\n Smith\u2019s solution to this dilemma, rather than ignoring or contorting texts (what Kenton Sparks calls \u201cscholastic alchemy\u201d on the cover blurb), is to be more consistently evangelical, which for Smith would involve a Christ-centered hermeneutic and accepting complexity and ambiguity as part of the nature of Scripture.<\/p>\n Smith strikes a good balance between an \u201cemperor\u00a0has no clothes\u201d vibe and a truly constructive and irenic tone. He will not doubt attract a\u00a0vociferous\u00a0response from some, but Smith\u2019s thesis deserves careful consideration, and I am sure it will receive the attention it richly deserves.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n<\/div>\n