A Working definition of Biblicism

We ended our introduction by seeing that the framing of “biblicism” by the church historians, Bebbington, Noll, Hatch, and Smith will not do justice to the contemporary discussion. Then we turned to the contemporary theologians themselves to get a better angle on the discussion. It is time for me to show my own cards.

Biblicism is a subconsciously intuitionist and atomistic approach to Scripture.

Let me explain what I mean by each of these words.

The two main qualities of this approach are modified by the word subconsciously, which is a word choice that is as risky as it is meant to avoid imputing motives. The initial point is only that this approach is not an elaborate theoretical construct. It is not a deliberate hermeneutic. It is not actively conceived in the mind that conceives other things by it. It may even be rightly viewed as a set of fear-based restrictions. On the other hand, the focus on the subconscious is not meant to suggest that those who exhibit biblicism are otherwise thoughtless, much less unintelligent, people.

If there is an epistemology behind biblicism it is intuitionist. In contradistinction to discursive knowledge—the building of larger sets of data by inference from premises to conclusions—intuitive knowledge is said to be an immediate conception. Do not misunderstand. In calling the whole approach “intuitionist,” the whole point is the link to the subconscious activity. It is a model of knowledge, described from the outside, much more than a theory of knowledge. A theory of knowledge that one holds to would require that the theorist knows that they have so theorized.

I am not suggesting that a biblicist is one who deliberately attempts to use the Bible only according to what is intuitive to them. The whole nature of intuition is that it not the product of reflection, and for the most part, it is not even reflected upon after the fact. One who operates as a biblicist is less likely to have worked out any such theory. It is intuitionist by default. Meaning is assumed more so than theorized.

A thing is called atomistic if it is isolated from a greater whole. The assumption behind the use of this adjective is that the isolated thing does indeed belong to the greater whole in question. Hence the isolated part has been unnaturally sealed off, preventing an otherwise healthy relationship between part and whole. The particular atomistic approach represented by biblicism operates on single words and larger word-units. This is the defining material characteristic of biblicism. What lies outside—the “extrabiblical”—is the genus in which one will find the species of historical studies, church tradition, logic, philosophy, literary principles, and so forth. Each of these are kept at bay, or even permanently exiled, by this atomistic approach.

Answering Some Objections to the Definition

It may be objected that using the Bible as a “handbook” for this or that, or as a “worldview lens” for all other areas of life—that these are frequently called biblicism, and yet these are not characterized by atomism. No doubt, many who are biblicist in the sense that I am articulating have also attempted to be throughly holistic in their thinking. However, I would only ask the one who has this thought to consider the basic trouble with such a “handbook” or “lens” approach. Metaphors aside, what we will be sensing is the problem of trying to make the part fit the whole, or at least over the whole in a way that can zoom in to all other parts. Our exercise in adjusting the lens or applying the handbook is itself beyond the lens or the handbook. In other words, it is not only our minds that transcend the ink patterns of Scripture, but many categories of the mind—common to all minds—involve movements between parts and whole. These are not “in the Bible” either.

Even if we never use such terms, we first run into the problems of intuitive expectation and atomistic restrictions in the most common of Christian concerns. When an appeal is made to Scripture with the assumption that the meaning will be self-evident to one’s audience, the intuitive dimension is at work. When all else is excluded but “What this verse means on its own,” the atomistic dimension is at work.

It is fashionable for the academically inclined to object that what we are calling “biblicist” is not a position that is seriously entertained. Then follows a sentence or two on the various traditions, schools of thought, and so forth, in which such a position would be untenable and is certainly not articulated. This is one of the more dishonest things that high brow academics do. These are the same sort of people who would deny the popular effects of postmodernism on the ground that the average person has never even heard of Foucault or Derrida. We can see clearly enough why that is a red herring. It is roughly the same in this case.

The person who denies that these restrictions on extra-biblical words and concepts regularly occur bear witness that they have not spent much time in the company of average believers. These ideas are absorbed by laypeople through popular rhetoric, whether in sermons, podcasts, or casual conversation.

One of the simplest entry points for recognizing this is the popular use of the adjective “biblical” as a test for the correctness of a Christian belief or practice. What does it mean for a thing to be “biblical”? Everyone who professes to be a Christian will presume that their own views are biblical and that the views that run counter to their own are unbiblical.

To ask what such a person means by this seems beneath our study. On the surface, we know very well what is meant. A biblical view is one that conforms to what the Bible actually teaches, and vice versa with the unbiblical view. We must extend the benefit of the doubt when our friends qualify their use of the term. They may sense that the term is functioning as a mantra or silencer, and shift from “what the Bible says” to the broader concept of “what the Bible teaches.” In due course, they mean even add, “I mean what it teaches in its proper context,” or else, “what the Bible as a whole, consistently, teaches.” Those are indeed helpful qualifications. Yet what is mouthed and what is meant may still be miles apart.

It is one thing to recognize that parts of the Bible must cohere with the whole of the Bible. It is another thing to reckon with other “wholes” of which the Bible is a part. The reality that the Bible speaks about includes the spiritual realm, the physical world, history and geography, and assumes the formal reality of mathematics, language and logic. The very uniqueness of the Bible—the exalted place it rightly occupies in the life and thought of the Christian—can come to have a segregating effect if we are not careful.

Think about it along these familiar lines: What is inside this book is viewed as spiritual, whereas what is outside of it is carnal from that same viewpoint. What is inside is of eternal significance; what is outside is mundane. Inside we find the purest truth, outside is inherently distorting. Perhaps the reader found those pairings to be too simplistic. That suspicion is commendable. For instance, should we conclude that what is outside of the Bible should be utterly cut off from what is inside? I would think not. Ironically, in the attempt to have a high view of Scripture, the believer can extract its truth from the very reality that it proposes to interpret.

Kinds and Degrees of Biblicism

Another possible reason for confusion in how the word is used regards different forms that biblicism takes. Sometimes it happens that when we hear someone’s explanation of a term or concept and it does not quite match how we tend to think of the same term or concept, we easily conclude that the two things must be utterly different. It is not unlike the case of legalism. Some will speak of a “performance legalism” and a “principle legalism.” Whatever words one uses to describe these species, the difference is real enough and yet remain in the same genus. The one describes a means of acceptance before God that is on the basis of works. The other describes a system of rules that have been added to the law of God as it is found in Scripture. Their common ground is this: Both cast the law in a prominent yet illegitimate role. The idea of biblicism features something of the same phenomenon. There tend to be two main kinds, but also a unity between them.

Let us call these two “descriptive biblicism” and “prescriptive biblicism.” Think of our division here in this way: Descriptive biblicism atomizes what is true and prescriptive biblicism atomizes what to do.

What are the basic manifestations of descriptive biblicism? This is in play any time we hear what I call the “address fallacy,” namely, the all-decisive demand: “Where is that word in the text?” In technical terms, this would actually be a species of the question-begging fallacy. The question that has been begged in this case is whether, or perhaps, in what way, a concept must be represented by words in a text in order for that concept to rightly be considered to be taught by Scripture.

In descriptive biblicism, words and word-phrases like “Trinity”, “simplicity”, “impute”, “covenant of works”, “moral law,” “ceremonial law”, “civil magistrate”, and so forth are frequently dismissed because they are “not in the Bible.” In other words, what is true, or biblical, is reduced to exact word recitation or word order.

Such a biblicism of terms famously played itself out in that most formative doctrinal dispute leading up to the Council of Nicaea. One of the complaints of the Arians was that the Greek word homoousion was not a Bible word. They were not as much bothered by the fact that their alternative word homoiousion was also not a Bible word. Athanasius did not fail to notice at the time, that, “the ill savour which attaches to evil, borrows Scripture language, as a cloak wherewith to sow the ground with his own poison also, and to seduce the simple.”1 Any words, phrases, or concepts that are extra-biblical in this sense are regarded as a priori categories read into the text by “systems” produced by mere mortals.

What about the basic manifestations of prescriptive biblicism? This form of biblicism is legion at the popular level. It is here where one can most clearly see the disingenuousness of those who deny that biblicism is a widespread phenomenon with common characteristics. In fact, it is part of the ordinary Christian experience and an element that one grows out of in Christian maturity. The quest for “God’s will for my life,” rules for modest dress, wisdom at work, the permissibility of alcohol, tobacco, firearms, tattoos, movies, or what to look for in a prospective spouse are all fertile fields for prescriptive biblicism.

In the aforementioned example of Hooker against the more radical Puritans, Littlejohn writes that, “you needed Scripture not merely to require something, but to do it at all,” and so “in some ways it was an error just as bad as the original Roman error, because it sought to bind consciences by the mere silence of Scripture.”2

There are also degrees worthy of our notice. There is a spectrum in the biblicist way of thought, the two polls of which we might simply label moderate biblicism and extreme biblicism. We might even be able to use the language of a “creeping biblicism” and a “settled biblicism,” or simply a “partial biblicism” and “full biblicism.” Why bother to make these distinctions? It for accuracy as much as it is for charity. It is to observe the ninth commandment even in our analysis and in our polemics.

Perhaps such fine distinctions will win few people over, but, as a general rule, we should not expect a fair hearing of our case from those to whom we have not first extended the same courtesy. Having said that, one relevant plea to the reader should be made at exactly this point. Extreme views have to be brought forth not only because they are real, but because they have in fact been influential. Remember as we go what I am not claiming. I am not claiming that if one exemplifies one element of biblicism, he will be guilty of all; nor that if one shows the tendency to one degree, he will soon fly off to the nth degree. We cannot get far in examining an idea if we are quick to take offense.

____________________________________________________________

1. Athanasius, Orations against the Arians, Oration I, 8.

2. Littlejohn, Introduction to Hooker’s Laws, xx.