One criticism of evangelical thinking is its persistence in biblicism. This mindset is omnipresent in evangelical circles. It is not questioned and is used as a demarcation against other models of thought. The aim of this article is twofold: on the one hand, it is intended to help recognize the characteristics of biblicist thinking and, on the other, to provide pointers to alternative approaches. Biblicism is a way of thinking that first emerged in the 19th century. People in this mindset are often unaware that there are valid alternative approaches. This is neither good nor bad. Thinking in black and white is not helpful. However, black-and-white thinking is inherent in biblicism, which rejects anything that does not fit into its own scheme. That is why it is not easy for many evangelicals to develop their own and new approach to the Bible. My criticism here is not a goal in itself, but aims to help you find a new and personal approach.

Characteristics of biblicism

The term biblicism has negative connotations today. However, the term was once also a neutral alternative to the term “Bible cult”. Biblicism often has the following characteristics:

• The deification of the Bible (verbal inspiration)
• The Bible is explained with the Bible (a healthy principle, but one that can take on absurd forms)
• The Bible must necessarily have an answer to everything. Non-biblical books, reports and explanations tend to be rejected.
• Bible as a manual of morals (note: only according to today’s perception within the framework of the doctrine)

Negative consequences include

• Biblicism promotes black and white thinking
• Biblicism promotes self-righteousness and sectarianism.
• Biblicists often find themselves back in trench warfare with other assumptions because “right doctrine” is placed at the center, rather than talking about God and Christ.
• There is often a lack of engagement with society and today’s questions.

In biblicist thinking, everything is measured against the Bible. The intention can be honored, but the Bible was not written as an answer to all questions. Example: Anyone who wants to prove creation with the Bible, for example, shows an affinity with biblicism. Although creation is attested to in the Bible, it is not “proven” there. This is an important difference. Even more important, however, is the realization that “creation” is not the subject of the Bible. The Bible is not a scientific treatise on this world, nor is it journalistic reporting as we understand it today. Anyone who therefore insists on “the truth of the Bible” may inadvertently end up abusing the Bible for their own interpretations. This mindset offends many people who sincerely believe but reject this “biblicist” way of thinking.

I used to be a biblicist. I had adopted this way of thinking and cultivated it for many years. In seeking more understanding about God and my new faith, I once saw this as the best way forward. I found evangelical aids to understanding the Bible far more helpful than what I heard in churches of the Reformation. That’s why I switched to evangelical communities back then. It was my desire to learn more about the Bible and these “Bible-based” ideas about the Bible appealed to me. Today I say that there is also a seduction there.

Over time, I realized that this way of looking at the Bible is very inward-looking and only focuses on itself. I had to admit that this view does not allow any discussion with other approaches. This way of looking at things closes itself off to the outside world. It doesn’t have to be that way, but it often seems to me to be pronounced in this direction. This is how I experienced it.

As a theologian, Karl Barth was also accused of biblicism because he was intensely concerned with biblical interpretation (e.g. his book “The Epistle to the Romans“). With Barth, it was also about the type of theology, the way of thinking. He found that theological training was no longer helpful for preaching and pastoral care, for example. His examination of the letter to the Romans was intended to open up new horizons. He was criticized for this because he actually differentiated himself from common theological ideas.

However, this could also be seen as a process and the search for new insights could be honored as such. «Explaining the Bible with the Bible» can be quickly, even prematurely, branded as “biblicism” by some. That also seems problematic to me. Without the Bible, there is no Christianity. How then should we read?

Biblicism is also visible in the fact that one distances oneself from tradition and tradition and seeks all salvation in the Bible. In a simplified scheme: the Bible is good and tradition is bad. I think there needs to be a debate and differentiation here. There is often a confusion between doctrine (tradition) and biblical statements. They are often not congruent. It is therefore helpful to at least distinguish between what is actually mentioned in the Bible and what has other sources. This is not yet an interpretation, not a judgment, still less a condemnation, but one can free oneself from the view that “my thoughts come exactly from the Bible”, as is often thought.

Bear in mind that there are many different ways of looking at things within Christianity. Some see only the Scriptures, others view the Bible through the lens of tradition. Still others see church history with the insights gained there as the continuation of the Bible and therefore with decisive authority. Within these perspectives, there are in turn different interpretations.

If we take a few steps back and look at this diversity with a little distance, we can see that we prefer one of several ways of thinking. You can have an opinion on it, find something good or bad, but with sufficient distance you can also see it as abstract concepts of faith and personal decisions. What are the strengths and weaknesses of such assumptions? A little distance can help you to have an open discussion about your own beliefs.

Dealing with the Bible

If one exposes biblicism as a narrow view, the question arises as to how one can then engage with the Bible. Nowhere have I experienced a greater rejection of the Bible than in the midst of a group of theologians. By this I do not mean that they were “liberal” according to the evangelical enemy image, but that the discussion of the Bible as a whole appeared to be suspect; anything that is not discussed in a theological ivory tower and academically, with all its doubts and reservations, cannot be taken seriously. I seem to have lost the connection to life there.

If the discussion of the Bible is perceived as suspicious, there is just as much of a problem as if biblicism is involved. So the question is: How can we avoid both the one and the other?

Today, I ask myself how we can positively shape our engagement with the Bible. It is about cultivating a culture of thought that neither remains caught up in biblicism nor strives for a leveling of faith. The difficulty here is that everyone, including me, is in their own place. This limits the view. For some people, I say exactly the same things that they themselves think. For others, however, I am merely a heretic and a false teacher who deviates from the correct doctrine. Others think that I am a pure biblicist, while others think that I have deconstructed so much that I need to be warned. However, my concern is not deconstruction, but reconstruction. Both are important in their own time, but the aim is not to abandon old thought patterns, but to find better thought patterns, without claiming to be flawless.

I also think that this development cannot be done by anyone alone, but is a development task within a community. We should reflect together (cf. Eph 3:18). I am aware that some see church history as an extended community with all believers from all times. Anyone who thinks this way will also take into account developments from church history. You can take this into account in the conversation. This diversity is a reality. That doesn’t mean I have to see it that way myself. Achieving the same mindset is never the goal.

The challenge

The discussion of the Bible is heavily biased, regardless of where you come from. Anyone who has previously only thought in terms of “right or wrong” will find it difficult to come to terms with this. It is a challenge. I understand that, having wrestled with these ideas myself for decades. Only gradually did I manage to have a more differentiated discussion. Today, I generally look at these things with a bit of distance. If I don’t want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, the question arises: How can we engage fruitfully with the Bible?

Many assumptions about the Bible come from our own faith community. Patterns of thought have been adopted, points of view adopted. No one believes from birth that there is a verbal inspiration. You learn such ideas over time. These and many other ideas about the Bible do not come from the Bible, but originated much later. Anyone who believes this is part of a tradition, even if they resist traditions and traditions. Being aware of this can have a liberating effect. One’s own assumptions do not have to be as biblical as is claimed. If you then look at the Bible again, you may discover that the examination of faith, promises and Scripture was characterized by other things. Perhaps there is not just one known interpretation, but one can deal with the Bible differently, perhaps even better.

There are therefore several questions that can be asked:

1. How did people in the Bible understand it?
2. What can I learn from this today?

The first question is about the Bible itself. However, the “how did they understand it” requires both an examination of the biblical testimony and the courage to include missing information from other sources. In an attempt to avoid ideologies for once, one can gather ideas and information to come to a more sober understanding of the Bible.

This is quite different from the biblical short-circuit: everything is divine, i.e. literal, and therefore everything is for me.

So first the question of how it was said and understood at the time. Only then could the significance of this insight be explored today. This is quite different from the biblical short-circuit: everything is divine, i.e. literal, and therefore everything is for me.

Pragmatic and alternative approaches

You can engage with the Bible on different levels. I am limiting myself here to the personal level. How can I personally engage with the Bible? I base myself on the following points:

• Stay curious
• The text has its own message, independent of my interpretation.
• The text is not an oracle. Not everything speaks “supernaturally” of me or my situation.
• The text is a testimony and what does it testify to? Read the text in context and according to the basic text.
• What can I learn from this?

My understanding of the Bible can be shaped by doctrines or theologies. These can be good and helpful, offering me something like “ways into the word”. However, doctrines and theologies are no substitute for the Bible itself. The Bible is simply what it is, a collection of testimonies from different times. Neither Moses nor the prophets, neither Jesus nor the apostles had a “Bible” as we know it today. They probably didn’t even know that we had something like this today. The deification of the Bible, a “Bible cult”, is therefore merely a pious projection onto these books. This does not negate the value of the Bible, but acknowledges its special character and origin. On the other hand, the Bible is an indispensable source for the Christian faith. Without the Bible, there is no Christian faith. It is sober to look at the Bible. It is not sober to cultivate a Bible cult.

It is sober to look at the Bible. It is not sober to cultivate a Bible cult.

Less ideology and more sobriety are helpful when looking at the Bible, because then it can speak for itself and is not dependent on my assumptions. Projections onto the Bible, regardless of their color, on the other hand, prevent a clear view.

It is incredibly difficult to leave evangelical thinking behind. Many turn away from it in disgust because the thought patterns are narrow, the assumptions about God and the world are rigid and often unworldly. However, those who once found their wealth in it are often faced with a vacuum when they let go of their previous views. That is not easy. How is this vacuum filled? This is an existentially important question if your own identity was linked to a certain understanding.

Even if certain doctrines are exposed as false, this does not automatically lead to inner liberation. Time and again I experience and hear how people have left certain teachings behind them, but inwardly still give space to old patterns. They often suffer as a result. How can we implement a holistic rethink?

• You can discover that not everyone thinks in terms of true/untrue
• You can discover that faith is a development, not a static certainty
• You can discover that asking questions helps, whereas supposed answers often only serve to avoid a controversie
• You can discover that there are different interpretations of many questions, especially because you look at a topic from different angles.

Deepening

• Visit a different faith community and discover how others deal with the Bible
• Share your concerns with others. Discover how people react differently.
• If previous assumptions make it difficult to read the Bible, ask whether the internalized assumptions are actually and literally contained in the Bible. If not, you can let the Bible speak for itself. This gives you freedom of thought.
• Many doctrines are like earworms: you can’t get rid of them once the song is playing in your head. That is why it is important to actively investigate new views. Have you ever examined anything else?
• Describe the way you look at the Bible and why this is so. Discuss.