Christian Smith and "The Bible Made Impossible": Comments on Some Reviews

The Englewood Review of Books today offers a good review by Michael Bowling of Christian Smith’s book The Bible Made Impossible.

When I first read Smith’s book, I thought he had nailed some important points, but that he had overlooked the important “theological interpretation” approach that animates a diverse group of contemporary readers (for example, the authors of the excellent Brazos Theological Commentary series). I was interested, then, to read Wheaton professor Daniel Treier’s summary in Books & Culture of the recent theological interpretation conference at Regent College, in which Treier briefly addresses Smith’s book.  Treier is a leading evangelical advocate of theological interpretation.

On the whole, I think Treier’s comments are good.  However, I think Treier is mistaken to attribute all the problems Smith observes to “sociological” factors. The issue is surely theological: the weak ecclesiology and nominalist / voluntarist God of much of Protestantism and particularly of modern evangelicalism.

Treier notes that Smith’s newly-adopted Catholic tradition also has its problems — a proposition no one could dispute.  But if, as Treier suggests, the celibate male Priesthood has caused problems (if Treier is referring here to the Clergy sex abuse scandals, the causal link in fact is unclear at best), then those are inherently theological as well.  (A pinched theology of sexuality?)

I believe Hans Boersma’s “Heavenly Participation” is on the right track.   (There is an excellent and friendly exchange between Treier and Boersma in the current Christian Scholars Review.)  Whatever the “Priesthood of all Believers” means, the individualistic heritage of the Reformation needs to be reformed and re-sourced.  And “sola scriptura,” practiced as it usually is as “sol_o_” scriptura, is neither theologically sound nor “Biblical” (see Acts 15) nor historically accurate nor — not surprisingly, as this always flows from theology — sociologically viable.