No one in the Bible believed “in the Bible.” The Bible simply did not exist in the time of the Bible. Neither Jesus nor the apostles nor the first communities knew a Bible as we possess it today. It was simply impossible to “believe in the Bible.” No one did. People believed and trusted God (Ps 25:2; Isa 12:2; Acts 27:25).

Whoever says they believe in the Bible is not appealing to the Bible but to a later tradition. One is thus declaring to others that one “thinks such and such.” It is a phrase that gains meaning as a marker of identity, group belonging, and as a “code word for special orthodoxy.” Because this has nothing to do with the Bible, however, the expression is directly misleading. The connection to the Bible and to a “correct” faith is indeed present, but it is nowhere defined that way in the Bible itself. The connection is artificial. It is imposed on the Bible and on one’s own behavior as an interpretation and a religious practice.

I understand that these terms can be important markers for a Christian identity. For many people, they define essential parts of their internalized convictions of faith. Yet they also create an illusion of something that does not exist, namely a connection to the Bible and the notion that “the Bible says exactly what we believe in our community today.” I am pointing out here what is not in the Bible so that one can distinguish between tradition and Bible. Only such a distinction creates clarity about one’s own convictions of faith. So whoever thinks they are relying on the Bible but is in fact standing only within a tradition should be allowed to discover that. In doing so, I am not defining what is “right or wrong,” but making possible a distinction that can be helpful in determining one’s own position.

“Real Christians,” some conclude, “believe in the Bible.” Believing in God is simply another kind of belief. To remove the discomfort of this division, people like to say that the Bible is God’s word, that it is infallible, and—consequently—that it can be equated with God. Here we arrive at the tradition and doctrine of the infallibility of the Scriptures. This doctrine, too, was foreign to the biblical writers. These are traditions that cloud the view of the Bible but are defended as being “faithful to Scripture.”

No one in the Bible was “faithful to Scripture.” Once this becomes apparent, it can no longer be overlooked. Expressions such as “faithfulness to Scripture,” “believing in the Bible,” or ideas about the “divinity of the Bible” spring from traditions. They are code words by which one marks belonging to a particular tradition. That is not wrong in itself, as long as one keeps in mind that the flag does not cover the cargo. Words are being used outside their supposed context, or words and ideas that are foreign to that context.

Whoever believes in the Bible and considers themselves faithful to Scripture stands, in terms of thought, close to the concept of “biblicism.” Biblicism is a diagnosis. It is an aberration of faith in which the Bible takes the place of God. It is a substitute faith. In my observation, such a faith arises primarily in Evangelical circles.

This is, incidentally, not the only derailment. Churches of the Reformation often stand in a strong theological tradition that presents itself as heavily intellectual. Faith and thought are closely aligned. This is not a holistic view but a particular formation. An overly intellectual Christianity can be just as problematic as a biblicism in which the Bible is placed above everything else.

Biblicism is the typical Evangelical idea that everything can and must be proven with the Bible in hand. Of course it is true that today we have only the Bible as a source. There are good reasons to engage with the Bible. Biblicism, however, goes further and deifies the Bible. This is the problematic development. Here the Bible no longer merely takes on the role of a witness but becomes directly the dictation of God, which must somehow be divine down to the letter. Paul describes the inspiration of Scripture quite differently (2 Tim 3:16–17).

This supposed “divinity of the Bible” is a deeply ideological formation. It is a Christian ideology that is reinforced by Evangelical traditions and subcultures. It blocks a nuanced view of the Bible and of matters of faith and often results in self-righteousness and arrogance and thereby in the vilification and slander of others.

Typical biblicism represents a kind of superstition. Many are familiar with it. But what might an alternative look like? That is the question here.
An obstacle is often the assumption that biblicism is good, and that everyone who deviates from it is not reading the Bible correctly. In other words, any kind of nuance is frowned upon. There is only one accepted version, namely one’s own version. Typical conclusions in this context include, for example:

• Whoever does not believe as we do cannot be a Christian.
• Whoever does not interpret the Bible as we do does not believe God.
• We think correctly, others think incorrectly.
• We believe correctly, others believe incorrectly.
• We are faithful to Scripture, everyone else is liberal (and of the devil).

This view is conservative, self-righteous, and stubborn. I held this view for a long time myself, which is why I dare to say so. Such a view leads nowhere and fosters no development, let alone a living faith. A living faith requires a certain vitality. That vitality does not arise from rigid prescriptions and ideological assumptions but from open questions. Identity grows as the fruit of many honest engagements, never from blind obedience to the doctrine of the community.

An alternative continues to take the Bible seriously but no longer views it exclusively through the lens of a particular interpretation. The text becomes more significant than the premature interpretation of how the text is supposed to be understood. In doing so, one may lose a fixed view, but this can be offset by curiosity. Likewise, one may lose a false sense of security based on supposedly immovable truths. Yet one gains a freedom in thought and faith that arises only through personal engagement.

In my experience, one must, in this process, confront internalized enemy images and fears. These arose because one once set oneself apart from other ideas and excluded oneself from genuine discourse. One imagines oneself safe within one’s own ivory tower. The idea that “only we are biblical and stand in the truth” made one blind to genuine engagements taking place outside one’s own thinking. That the world may be larger than one suspected is something one first has to get used to. In addition, one must learn to differentiate. There is not only black and white.

Example
Engagement with theology and the Bible at universities is often vilified and demonized in Evangelical circles. Bound up with this is the idea that something can only be right or wrong. But that is not what it is about. While many grow up with an idea of absolute truth (within their own teachings), a scholarly approach is less fixed. It works with hypotheses, investigates, compares, and thereby also gains exceptionally useful insights. Perhaps one can make use of some of it; perhaps one stands elsewhere oneself. Both are fine, because one can only ever be on the way to better insights. It is a fine thing when someone finds the courage for this and consciously strives for growth.

Alternatives must be worked out for oneself. There are stubborn ideologues in every camp, whether Evangelical or mainline Protestant, Orthodox or atheist. Taking leave of unfruitful ideological trench warfare is a sign of authentic growth.