Biblicism: How We Disenchanted Our Bibles

REGENT COLLEGE

BIBLICISM: HOW WE DISENCHANTED OUR BIBLE

AN ESSAY IN INDS 581 PREPARED FOR DR. CRAIG GAY

BY MATTEO MORTELLITI 213575

VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA JUNE 30, 2014

Word Count: 4080



1 The secularization of the West contained a disenchanting effect which deified rationalism

and made implausible that which did not adhere to “facts.” To fight against the challenge of the Enlightenment, conservative theologians established themselves as anti-liberal and anti-modern in order to maintain their identity as “fundamentalists.” Yet, their treatment of the Bible adhered to the rules of “facts,” and reduced it to a scientific book which provided equations for life. Thus, a majority of contemporary Evangelicals have inherited a disenchanted, anthropocentric approach to the Bible known as biblicism. Biblical literalism—sometimes termed biblicism—is a hermeneutical approach to Scripture that is widely accepted in contemporary evangelical churches today. Sociologist Christian Smith claims that biblicism is implicitly if not explicitly practiced among nearly all American Protestant fundamentalists and charismatic and Pentecostal Christians.1 If his conclusions are correct, a large portion of mainstream Christianity and its extensive body of Christian literature (books), worship material (music), and church resources (how-to guides) derive from a functionally biblicist framework. Yet, according Smith, biblicism is an approach to Scripture that is not truly evangelical, and “needs to be abandoned in favor a better approach to Christian truth and authority.”2 Indeed, biblicists are often spoken of pejoratively due to their irrational and somewhat anti-scientific conclusions. In favor of a “plain” interpretation of Scripture, biblicists are known to demonize scientific theories: evolution and a billion year old earth are untenable simply because “the Bible says so.”3 Such a hermeneutical tenacity is often viewed as pious and “truly” allegiant to God and his Word, while falsely dichotomizing Christian truth and scientific truth. And yet, despite the biblicist’s notoriety for being irrational 1

Christian Smith, The Bible Made Impossible: Why Biblicism Is Not a Truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Brazos Press, 2012), 3. 2 Ibid., viii. 3 For example, a recent debate was between Bill Nye and Ken Ham, viewable here: http://debatelive.org.



2

and sectarian, this paper will seek to uncover how inevitably modern the biblicist approach to Scripture is, (unintentionally) using worldly means for a (sometimes) worldly end. The purpose of this paper is not to question the sincerity of the functional biblicist, but to assess the integrity of this method with respect to the project of modernity. First, we will examine the “disenchanted” character of a secular society and its resulting affinity for “facts,” provoked by the Enlightenment. Second, we will explore Christian fundamentalism and its adoption of modern ideals in its treatment of Scripture. Third, we will analyze contemporary biblicism and its consequences and conclude with suggestions for a way forward. A Secular Society: Disenchantment and Exclusive Humanism In the development of the modern world, the dialectic between new structures and new ideals led to the formation of an increasingly rational consciousness, elevating naturalist explanations in the place of what was once attributed to spirits and unseen forces—the Weberian “disenchantment” of the Western world. The “enchanted” world of the past, sociologist Max Webber states, was displaced in favor of a formal rationality, exemplified by capitalism. 4 Along this line, in The Sacred Canopy, Peter Berger explains disenchantment as a necessary correlate to the process of secularization. Moreover, a society is secularized when it is severed from religious dominance in its symbols and institutions, having both subjective effects in consciousness and objective effects in social structures. Berger explains, When we speak of culture and symbols, however, we imply that secularization is more than a social-structural process. It affects the totality of cultural life and of ideation, and may be observed in the decline of religious contents in the arts, in philosophy, in literature and, most important of all, in the rise of science as an autonomous, thoroughly secular perspective on the on the world…this means that the modern West has produced an increasing number of individuals who look upon the world and their own lives without 4

Max Weber, The Sociology of Religion (Boston: Beacon Press, 1993) and Max Weber and Talcott Parsons, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (Roxbury Pub., 1998).



3 the benefit of religious interpretations.5

This has resulted in what sociologist Charles Taylor refers to as “exclusive humanism”: while the pre-modern self-understanding was “porous”6 –open to a world of spirits, the modern selfunderstanding is “buffered”7—shielded from anything outside the mind. Taylor comments on the anthropocentric character of a secular society, claiming that the “coming of modern secularity … has been coterminous with the rise of a society in which for the first time in history a purely selfsufficient humanism came to be a widely available option. I mean by this a humanism accepting no final goals beyond human flourishing, nor any allegiance to anything else beyond this flourishing.”8 Providing commentary on the work of Charles Taylor, James K.A. Smith claims that exclusive humanism is “a radically new option in the marketplace of beliefs, a vision of life in which anything beyond the immanent is eclipsed.”9 This “vision of life” was and is in many respects dialectically related to the rise of a scientifically driven epistemology. Indeed, the rise of science and scholarship was largely responsible for the disenchantment of the West. Taylor argues that “what began to look more plausible was the whole stance underlying the epistemology of materialism, over against that underlying the epistemology of Christian faith.”10 This epistemology could be traced to the 17th century Enlightenment which, according to Immanuel Kant, was characterized by the phrase “dare to know.”11 The challenge to all individuals was to “truly know” by using rational methods to discover the facts about the world. 5

Peter L. Berger, The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion (New York: Anchor Books, 1990), 107. 6 Charles Taylor, A Secular Age (Cambridge, Mass: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2007), 35. 7 Ibid., 38. 8 Taylor, 18. 9 James K. A. Smith, How (not) to Be Secular: Reading Charles Taylor (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2014), 22-23. 10 Taylor, 362. 11 Immanuel Kant, An Answer to the Question: “What Is Enlightenment?” (London; New York: Penguin Books, 2009).



4

To accomplish this, one had to strip away all biases and traditions. This implied that the individual had the potential and right to exercise his reason in the search for reality. Reason became the new sovereign: “it cannot bow before any authority other than what it calls the facts,” including any alleged divine revelation or ancient tradition.12 The Enlightenment selfunderstanding was in many respects forwarded by the scientific revolution and the increasing use of empirical data as the basis of all knowledge in the work of Galileo, Francis Bacon, and Isaac Newton, and propagated by philosopher David Hume. Crisis of Theology Secularization and the increasing plausibility of an exclusive humanism generated the “crisis of credibility” for religion. The man-in-the-street was caused to disengage from what was outside the mind, and whatever was beyond the naturalist boundary became implausible. Along this line, Berger claims that an increase in religious and idealistic pluralism forced a demonopolization of the Church, relegating it to the private sphere of society. This imposed a “market situation” in which religious institutions, as well as other movements, were consigned to a level playing field.13 Each had to learn the rules of economy, understanding what “sells” in order to win converts and maintain allegiance. Herein lies the “crisis of theology” which occurred at this point in history: in order to maintain societal plausibility, the pressure to achieve results forced religious structures to attempt legitimation by compromising with secular thought. In this competitive and pluralistic world, “results” are important for survival, demanding the rationalization of every institution.14 And so, Berger’s Heretical Imperative concludes that since 12

Lesslie Newbigin, Foolishness to the Greeks: The Gospel and Western Culture (Grand Rapids, Mich: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co, 1986), 25. 13 Berger, Canopy, 145. 14 Berger, canopy, 145.



5

there is no overarching “plausibility structure,” everyone must therefore choose for himself the canopy by which he will find meaning, and thus everyone is a “heretic.”15 Missiologist Lesslie Newbigin objects to Berger’s apparently incomplete analysis, claiming that though there is no such thing as “orthodoxy” in the traditional sense, there is a world in which “we are not all heretics”—that is, the world of facts.16 Newbigin describes the plausibility structure of the Modern West in this way: Where statements of alleged fact are in contradiction to congratulate ourselves on our faithfulness to the principle of pluralism. We argue, experiment, carry out tests, and compare results, until we finally agree on what the facts are; and we expect all reasonable people to accept them. The one who does not accept them is the real heretic. Of course, he will not be burned at the stake, but his views will not be published in the scientific journals or in the university lecture rooms.17 The plausibility structure of the West submits exclusively to the modern scientific method. In order to remain plausible, one must play according to the rules of facts, a plausibility structure set in motion during the Enlightenment and maintained today. Many scholars have argued that the Protestant Reformation contained the seeds of modernity. Regardless of where one stands on these debates, it must be noted that that since the Reformation, a variety of Protestant sects endorsed the modern ideals of empiricism, rationalism, and individualism. “The modern world,” Berger writes, “could be interpreted as a higher realization of the Christian spirit … or Christianity could be regarded as the principal pathogenic factor responsible for the supposedly sorry state of the modern world.” In contrast to the Catholic Church, the Protestant Church responded to pressures of modernity by abolishing the 15

Peter L. Berger, The Heretical Imperative: Contemporary Possibilities of Religious Affirmation, 1st ed. (Garden City, N.Y: Anchor Press, 1979). 16 Newbigin, 16. 17 Ibid.



6

sacramental character of created things, disenchanting the sacraments of the church and the intercession of the saints, and eliminating the continuity of the seen and unseen world. Berger concludes: “It can be said that Protestantism divested itself as much as possible from the three most ancient and most powerful concomitants of the sacred—mystery, miracle, and magic… The Protestant believer no longer lives in a world ongoingly penetrated by sacred beings and forces.”18 The Bible too, consequently, became disenchanted. Indeed, the Enlightenment, N.T. Wright notes, issued new challenges to the study and interpretation of the Bible which undermined traditionally held beliefs. Several historians under the influence of the Enlightenment sought to reveal that historical readings of Scripture would undermine central Christian claims on matters of history, science, and morality. The reactions of both Protestant Liberalism and Conservative fundamentalism which ensued were battles of “one kind of Enlightenment vision and another.”19 With an understanding of the Enlightenment context we will now examine Christian fundamentalism, its capitulation to modern ideals and its disenchantment of Scripture. Fundamentalism: The Counter Movement Fundamentalism was a reactionary initiative that occurred in distinct cultural conditions marked by an increasingly secularized and post-Christian culture in the early 20th century.20 The cultural problem, according to the Fundamentalists, was that “modernism and the theory of evolution… had caused a catastrophe by undermining the Biblical foundations of American civilization.”21 It had been established within fundamentalist circles that modernity was an 18

Berger, The Sacred, 111. N. T Wright, Scripture and the Authority of God: How to Read the Bible Today (New York: HarperOne, 2013), 93. 20 George M. Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture, 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), 3. 21 Marsden, 3. 19



7

enemy of the Gospel, and thus fundamentalism took on the characterization of “militant” antimodernism.22 But it was not enough for Fundamentalists to distinguish themselves by opposing what they considered modern ideals. They continued their antagonism and solidified their identity by dissenting from other Christians whom they considered “liberal.” Fundamentalists were known for their readiness to fight against liberal theology, and by the middle of the 20th century, fundamentalism rendered separation from other denominations a test of true faith. By the 1960s, “fundamentalist” usually meant separatist, and no longer included the many conservatives in mainline denominations: fundamentalists labeled those who disagreed with them as “liberal.”23 The war with modernism reached a climax in the 1920s with many modernist-fundamentalist debates and the famed Scopes trial of 1925. Richard Lints notes that the main concern of the Fundamentalists was to guard against naturalism and its assaults on the Bible’s integrity.24 What made up twelve volumes of ninety essays by various authors, The Fundamentals became the book which would dramatically shape the ensuing Evangelical movement. Conservative scholars, teachers and pastors set aside their secondary theological beliefs in order to attack cultural and theological modernism in solidarity.25 The Fundamentals focused on core dogmas and the simplicity of the Gospel; as a result, “the narrow unity of the movement led to subsequent fragmentation, and the early distillation of the gospel into a simple core led to the subsequent abandonment of a rich theological vision.”26 However, despite the attempt to guard against naturalism and its assault on the Bible, the method in their approach to Scripture was, one may argue, naturalistic. Historian Mark Noll points out that the emphasis on 22

Marsden, 4. George M. Marsden, Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism (Grand Rapids, Mich: W.B. Eerdmans, 1991), 3. 24 Richard Lints, The Fabric of Theology: A Prolegomenon to Evangelical Theology (Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 1993), 40. 25 Reuben Archer Torrey and A. C. Dixon, The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth, 12 vols (Los Angeles, CA: Bible Institute of Los Angeles, 1910). 26 Lints, 39. 23



8

biblical inerrancy among Fundamentalists led interpreters to believe that their interpretation— that is, the interpretation of the Fundamentalists—was also inspired and infallible: “fundamentalists were reading history [and the Bible] as if they were inspired like the authors of Scripture had been inspired, rather than as believers whom God had commissioned to participate in the on going nurture of the church in a time between the times.”27 Following the example of leaders Charles Hodge and Benjamin Warfield, the fundamentalist approach to Scripture was largely governed by the philosophy of Scottish common-sense realism and Baconian inductiveempirical philosophy of science. These methods assumed the “picture theory of language” which asserts that “words are directly knowable by the mind and, in addition, are direct representations of the objects to which they refer.”28 There was a direct correlation between the knower and the known, and any theory that split them was resisted. One would begin with the plain text of the Bible, and induce from it spiritual “truths” or “laws.” A well-known statement capturing this naturalistic method appeared in 1872, in Charles Hodge’s Systematic Theology: The Bible is to the theologian what nature is to the man of science. It is his store-house of facts; and his method of ascertaining what the Bible teaches, is the same as that which the natural philosopher adopts to ascertain what nature teaches… The duty of the Christian theologian is to ascertain, collect, and combine all the facts which God has revealed concerning himself and our relation to him. These facts are all in the Bible.29 Similarly, early nineteenth century dispensationalist Lewis Sperry Chafer encouraged a mechanistic approach to scripture that presumed biblical exclusivity to truth. In his Systematic Theology, he writes:

27

Mark A Noll, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind (Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans, 1994), 135. Kern Robert Trembath, Evangelical Theories of Biblical Inspiration: A Review and Proposal (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987), 19, quoted in Christian Smith, 56. 29 Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 1 (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), 10. 28



9 Systematic Theology is the collecting, scientifically arranging, comparing, exhibiting, and defending of all facts from any and every source concerning God and His work… The student of the Scriptures… will discover that God’s great time-periods, characterized as they are by specific divine purposes, fall into a well-defined order… God’s program is as important to the theologian as the blueprint to the builder or the chart to the mariner… Theology, as a science, has neglected this great field of revelation… Contemplation of the doctrine of human conduct belongs properly to a science which purports to discover, classify, and exhibit the great doctrines of the Bible… The science of interpretation [is] usually designated hermeneutics… Logical procedure and scientific method [are the keys to hermeneutics].30

We can now see how the principles of Enlightenment rationality—and the resulting plausibility structure that pertained to “facts”—created the conditions for the treatment of Scripture as a scientific text. Mark Noll claims that this approach caused Fundamentalists to treat verses in the Bible as “pieces in a jigsaw puzzle that needed only to be sorted and then fit together to possess a finished picture of divine truth… the conviction that a specific formula could capture for all times and places the essence of biblical truth for any specific issue concerning God, the human condition, or the fate of the world.”31 Fundamentalists held that Scripture was a compendium of truths rather than a witness to the work of God in Christ. Here we find the seeds of contemporary biblicism. Indeed, as the teachings of Hodge and Warfield were used in the modernistFundamentalist battles, it was “often their weaker, mores simplistic ideas that shaped the thinking of subsequent generations of evangelicals.”32 We have now shown how the modernist-Fundamentalist controversy reacted to the ideals of modernity, primarily by way of adaptation. To summarize, the process of secularization was dialectically formed by the rise of science and a rational consciousness, enforcing a buffered and disenchanted experience that excluded transcendent “visions of life” and rendered plausible only 30

Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1993), quoted in Noll 128. Noll, 127. 32 Christian Smith, 57. 31



10

that which pertained to “facts.” The Protestant Reformation itself foreshadowed the disenchanted character of modern society by discarding a sacramental worldview and, as illustrated by the modernist-Fundamentalist debate, absorbed the very ideals of modernity it sought to oppose. Today, we wrestle with the consequence of this cultural capitulation: biblicism. Biblicism Today In The Bible Made Impossible, sociologist Christian Smith aims to prove that contemporary biblicism is not a faithfully “Evangelical” reading of Scripture.33 His account of contemporary biblicism provides a helpful analysis for exploration. Smith defines biblicism according to various propositions. In summary, for biblicists, the Bible constitutes a complete statement of what God has to say to humanity regarding competent Christian life. The Bible is sufficient for theological formulation without the need of traditions, creeds, and confessions and it possesses internal harmony in all things containing universal principles for all times and places. The Bible can be clearly understood by any person by rational means, and is best understood in its plain, literal sense. Indeed, the Bible is 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.”34 Though perhaps overstated in his study, Smith’s definition highlights a number of relevant themes aligning with the “exclusive humanism” explained above, two of which will be explored here. First, the uniquely utilitarian character of biblicism: the biblicist’s theory of what the Bible is and how it should be read presupposes that its ultimate purpose is to serve human practicality. Scripture becomes purely a personal means to a personal end; a functional tool to 33

Smith’s definition of “Evangelical” is somewhat ambiguous, and seems to align more with the Gospel narrative, rather than the tradition of Evangelicalism. 34 Christian Smith, 4-5



11

serve penultimate human needs. Second, biblicism assume an excessive confidence in the biblicist’s ability to interpret the Bible’s meaning. One Canadian-based website’s statement of faith regarding the Bible claims that “the Holy Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit and is the only complete record of God's will for man on earth. It is understandable by the common man by simply reading it.”35 Another website’s definition also illustrates this anthropocentric biblicism, highlighting the way in which readers will benefit from the Bible: The Bible was written through more than 40 men, but it fits together perfectly as if written by one man because the author of all 66 books is the Holy Spirit. The Bible was written over a time span of about 2,000 years, and it is totally accurate in matters of History, Prophesy, and every issue of life. There are no contradictions in the Bible. The word of God has had a profound impact on human history because: The Bible contains the mind of God, the state of man, the way of salvation, the doom of sinners, and the happiness of believers. Its doctrines are holy, its precepts are binding, its histories are true, and its decisions are immutable. Read it to be wise, believe it to be safe, and practice it to be holy. It contains light to direct you, and comfort to cheer you. It is the traveler’s map, the pilgrim’s staff, the pilot’s compass, the soldier’s sword, and the Christian’s charter.36 Under the plausibility structure of “facts,” the Bible becomes a go-to book for instructions on the best possible conduct: it is valuable because “it works.” This utilitarian bent is further evident in countless examples of Christian books written on a wide range of topics, claiming to provide biblical “views,” “secrets,” “manuals” and “prophecies.” The Bible in this context can be compared to “Pinterest”—an online tool that provides “DIY” guides that help users “hack life.”37 Based on these definitions, one can see that biblicism is an anthropocentric approach to the Bible. We cannot here go into great depth at listing the subsidiary problems with biblicism, but in order to provide suggestions for a way forward, some consequences must be highlighted.

35

“Our view of the Bible,” Accessed 20 June, 2014, available from www.bible.ca/seek-about.htm. “Bible Authors,” accessed 20 June, 2014, available from http://allsands.com/religious/bibleauthors_rkb_gn.htm. 37 DIY: “do it yourself.” “Hack life:” using unconventional tricks that increase productivity and efficiency. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_hacking. 36



12 One of the consequences ensuing from biblicism is the neglect of the parts of Scripture

that seem irrelevant or directly impractical. Why read the entire book of Exodus or Numbers? It doesn’t, at first glance, seem “about me” and thus it is sidelined—indeed, why read about the Old Testament Law when it’s no longer binding? So, rather than reading the narratives that explain God’s dealings with his people, biblicists focus on bumper-sticker type Scripture that (appear to) appeals to the individual, with an encouraging tone and practical imperative. Indeed, one of the most quoted verses of Scripture in 2012 was Jeremiah 29:11: “‘For I know the plans I have for you,’ declares the LORD, ‘plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.’”38 Many quote this verse as a personal guarantee and reminder that their dreams will be achieved and that God has special plans to bless them. Not only is historical and literary context neglected, but Christ is rarely identified as God’s ultimate plan for a sinful creation, nor the plan that brings a climax to Israel’s hope and future. Scripture thus loses its Christological climax, and instead is made to provide comfort to the narcissistic individualist, focused on self-fulfillment rather than truth. Another consequence of biblicism arises with respect to the revisionist motto of “solo scriptura.” Instead of being defined as the sole infallible authority, the Bible becomes “sole basis of authority,” dismissing the authority of the Church in its creeds and traditions.39 Craig Allert has shown how contemporary versions of sola scriptura are used as justification to reject tradition as a source for theology.40 Thus extra-biblical content—whether for the use in biblical interpretation or communal worship—is sidelined, suggesting that all that is required for 38

Jeremiah 29:11 was the second most read Bible verse in 2012 on Biblegateway.com. See http://www.biblegateway.com/blog/2013/01/the-top-10-bible-verses-of-2012/ 39 Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Basic Theology: A Popular Systemic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth (Chicago, Ill: Moody Press, 1999), 22. 40 Craig D. Allert, “What Are We Trying to Conserve?: Evangelicalism and Sola Scriptura,” The Evangelical Quarterly, 76.4 (2004): 327-348.



13

Christian doctrine and morality is to be drawn from Scripture and put together in its proper order.41 The average contemporary Evangelical worship service contains newly written radiosounding songs and a “relevant” sermon. Scripture is rarely read aloud (1 Tim. 4:13), there is often little to no mention of the Trinitarian nature of God, and the sacrament of communion is easily relegated to a once-a-month appearance. Solo Scriptura places unending confidence on the individual’s ability to interpret scripture by oneself, and though it intends to place all authority on Scripture, it places the final authority on the reason and judgment of each individual reader. These consequences highlight the disenchantment of Scripture; or put another way, Scripture is no longer a sacrament, an outward sign of an inward grace, which points to the reality of Christ. The “Word of God” no longer refers to Christ, but to a book of answers. Under the pressure to make “facts” the chief plausibility structure under the scientific method, conservative evangelicals have made Scripture a workable list of resources and life principles which can be extracted from the Christian community and used at the benefit of the rational knower: a rendering of the Enlightenment principle of exclusive humanism. Conclusively, the only way forward is to begin where Scripture begins: creation. In the creation narrative, what is made evident is that God is creator of all, and man is a fallen being. The creatorness of God should direct Christians to acknowledge that all truth—even when not explicitly dictated by Scripture—is God’s truth, and truth should be celebrated wherever it is found. Secondly, the fallenness of man should eradicate overconfidence in common-sense realism and Enlightenment rationality, which contain the presuppositions that with enough mental and rational work, one can achieve a pure reading of Scripture. Conversely, the depravity 41

Christian Smith, 82.



14

of man should not encourage an oscillation towards extreme relativism or interpretive futility, but should indeed point us to a third point contained in the creation narrative: community. The creation narrative highlights the communal element of being a human created in God’s image, and the communal task to care for creation. Sacraments are employed by a community of faith; one cannot be baptized, take communion, or read the Scriptures, alone. Douglas M. Koskela writes, While the practice of reading Scripture on one’s own is deeply valuable — some would say crucial —in the Christian life, significant problems emerge when one’s reading of the Bible is disconnected from the community of faith. Just as the sacraments are celebrated in community, the practice of reading Scripture is most faithfully carried out in conversation with other Christians of the present and past. To recover a properly “high” view of Scripture, the task for conservative evangelicals is to rediscover the richness of the Christian tradition and its place in the Christian community. Furthermore, the Church must recognize that the Word of God is preached in the full sense only when preaching is “accompanied and explained by the sacraments” as it points to the revelation of Christ.42 By the assistance of the Holy Spirit, the evangelical community must be committed to accomplish the difficult historical and exegetical task of uncovering the riches of Scripture, generation after generation, recognizing itself as a part of story that has not yet ended, and being committed to the full reading of Scripture, in both private and public settings. It is only in this way that they may become the community who not only understands, but participates in the drama of God’s salvation to redeem the whole of creation.

42

Karl Barth, Homiletics, 1st ed. (Louisville, Ky: Westminster/J. Knox Press, 1991), 58.



15 Works Cited

Allert, Craig D. “What Are We Trying to Conserve?: Evangelicalism and Sola Scriptura.” The Evangelical Quarterly, 76.4 (2004): 327-348. Barth, Karl. Homiletics. 1st ed. Louisville, Ky: Westminster/J. Knox Press, 1991. Berger, Peter L. The Heretical Imperative: Contemporary Possibilities of Religious Affirmation. 1st ed. Garden City, N.Y: Anchor Press, 1979. ———. The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion. New York: Anchor Books, 1990. Chafer, Lewis Sperry. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1993. Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology. Vol. 1. Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997. Kant, Immanuel. An Answer to the Question: “What Is Enlightenment?” London; New York: Penguin Books, 2009. Lints, Richard. The Fabric of Theology: A Prolegomenon to Evangelical Theology. Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 1993. Marsden, George M. Fundamentalism and American Culture. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006. ———. Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism. Grand Rapids, Mich: W.B. Eerdmans, 1991. Newbigin, Lesslie. Foolishness to the Greeks: The Gospel and Western Culture. Grand Rapids, Mich: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co, 1986. Noll, Mark A. The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans, 1994. Smith, Christian. The Bible Made Impossible: Why Biblicism Is Not a Truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Brazos Press, 2012. Smith, James K. A. How (not) to Be Secular: Reading Charles Taylor. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2014. Torrey, Reuben Archer. Dixon, A. C. The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth. 12 Vols. Los Angeles, CA: Bible Institute of Los Angeles, 1910. Trembath, Kern Robert. Evangelical Theories of Biblical Inspiration: A Review and Proposal. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987.



Weber, Max. The Sociology of Religion. Boston: Beacon Press, 1993. Weber, Max, and Talcott Parsons. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Roxbury Pub., 1998. Wright, N. T. Scripture and the Authority of God: How to Read the Bible Today. New York: HarperOne, 2013.

16