Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
John Bartkowski
The University of Texas at Austin
This study highlights the limitations associated with sociological conceptualizations of "biblical lit-
eralism" and "biblical inerrancy," and proposes an alternate theoretical model for illuminating conser-
vative Protestant scriptural interpretations. In an effort to redress these conceptual limitations, I bring
insights from the field of hermeneutics to bear on the Utercdism-inerrancy problem. Hermeneuticists
maintain that a reader's interpretation of a text may be exphined (I) by examining the presupposi-
tions (or "prejudices") which the reader brings to the text,.and (2) by evaluating the circular process
by which a reader imparts meaning to the text (i.e., the hermeneutic circle). After outlining the con-
tours of the hermeneutic model of textual interpretation, I apply this model to explain contradictory
scriptural interpretations advanced by leading conservative Protestants concerning (I) the concept of
"submission" in conservative Christian marital relations, and (2) the role of corporal punishment in
conservative Protestant parenting ideology. I conclude by specifying avenues for future research.
Direct correspondence to John Bartkowski, Department of Sociology, 336 Burdine Hall, The University of Texas at
Austin, Austin, Texas 78712-108. A previous version of this paper was presented at the 1995 annual meetings of ie
Society for the Scientific Study of Religion, St. Louis, MO. / would like to thank Christopher Ellison, Louis E. Fischer,
Joseph Forman, William Garrett, Joseph Tamney, and the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments on
earlier versions of aus paper. However, I claimfidiresponsibility for the analyses and interpretations presented herein.
I use the term "conservative Protestant" as an umbrella term for theologically conservative Protestant
groups (Roof and McKinney 1987), and use the labels "conservative evangelical*' and "conservative Christian*'
interchangeably for stylistic convenience. Most conservative Protestants simply refer to themselves as
"Christian," a term which I use selectively and in quotation marks to designate it as a self'proclaimed label. It
also bears mentioning that the terms "literalism" and "inerrancy" originated as native evangelical concepts, but
more recently have been appropriated by sociologists to explain distinctively conservative Protestant attitudes
and behaviors.
259
260 SOCIOLOGY OF RELIGION
Jelen and his colleagues (1990) reconcile these studies* apparent discrepancies by suggesting that
respondents in the later investigation were able to discriminate between inerrantist/infallibilist options on the
one hand (each of which permit metaphorical interpretation of some biblical "truths") and a "literalist"
response category on the other (which takes the text word for word without any qualification whatsoever).
Jelen's ( 1989) original study did not permit such distinctions.
BEYOND BIBLICAL LITERALISM AND INERRANCY 261
believed not to imply that the event never happened; and lastly (3) those who
argue for appropriate inenancy, thereby attempting to distinguish the "essential
truths" of the Gospel (which are believed to be without error) from the Bible's
non-essential qualities (e.g., pseudonymous writings, scientific inaccuracies, cul-
tural accommodations). And, finally, to complicate matters further, Barnhart
(1993:136-37) demonstrated via the Genesis creation story that a literalist inter*
preuve strategy may be used by both inerrantists and noninerrantists to support their
particular readings of Scripture.
This case study, coupled with the contradictory findings of previous empiri-
cal studies, has highlighted the conceptual elasticity and empirical ambiguity
which plagues the terms "literalism" and "inerrancy." Indeed, how can scholars
continue to investigate the broader conservative Protestant commitment to an
authoritative reading of the Bible without simultaneously giving short shrift to
the significant theological and interpretive diversity that seems to exist within
contemporary conservative evangelicalism? In what follows, I suggest that
hermeneutics may provide the theoretical foundation for a more adequate under-
standing of conservative Protestant scriptural interpretation. After briefly outlin-
ing the central features of hermeneutic theory, I apply these insights to evangeli-
cal scriptural interpretation as related to two of the most controversial aspects of
conservative Protestant family life: submission in spousal relations, and the cor-
poral punishment of children.
-* I make reference to post-Reformation theological debates simply to describe the historical context in
which hermeneutic theory developed. A review of these theological treatises, or of classical sociological studies
on the theological convictions and scriptural views embraced by post-Reformation Protestant "sects/* is beyond
the purview of this study (see Nevin 1849a, 1849b; Trembath 1987; Weber 1958 for treatments of these
issues).
262 SOCIOLOGY OF RELIGION
The classic formulation of the hermeneutic circle holds that we comprehend the details of a
work only by projecting a sense of the whole, just as, conversely, we can achieve a view of the
whole only by working through its parts. All interpretation consequently requires acts of faith
beliefs that compose parts into a whole, hypotheses for understanding that we check, mod-
ify, and refine by moving back and forth between aspects of any state of affairs and our sense
of its overall configuration... . From the title page on, we ceaselessly and silently use the in-
dications of details to project hypotheses about the whole, conjectures that are at first vague
and provisional. Then we employ these guesses to make sense of the work's parts just as ev-
erything new we come across helps to refine and amplify our overarching construct
(Armstrong 1990:2-3).
BEYOND BIBLICAL LITERALISM AND INERRANCY 263
Having outlined the general contours of the hermeneutic model, I will now
attempt to demonstrate how this model illuminates divergent conservative
Protestant readings of the Bible. To this end, I provide two case studies in con-
servative Protestant scriptural interpretation, both centered on aspects of con-
servative evangelical family life which have sparked debate among contemporary
religious conservatives. First, I analyze the impact of reader prejudice on compet-
ing views of spousal "submission" via a detailed analysis of Larry Christenson's
The Christian family (1970) (over 1.2 million copies sold) and Ginger Gabriels
revised and expanded Being a woman of God ( 1993) (over 250,000 copies in print
and the self-proclaimed "classic bestseller" on "Christian" womanhood). The
second case study examines how the hermeneutic circle illuminates divergent con-
servative Protestant theological legitimations for child discipline advanced by
James Dobson and Ross Campbell. Dobson, the founder and president of Focus
on the Family, has authored Dare to discipline (1970), The strong-willed child
(1978), and Parenting isn't for cowards (1987) (which have sold well over two
million copies combined). Ross Campbell's best-selling "Christian" parenting
manuals include Kids who follow, kids who don't (1989) and How to really love
your child (1992) (the latter of which claims over one million copies in print and
has been translated into nearly twenty languages).
To analyze the documents described above, I have read each of the gender
and family manuals several times in an attempt (1) to ascertain the author's ideo-
logical position on the topic in question, and (2) to characterize the presuppositions
and interpretive strategies by which these specialists seek to support their respec-
tive positions. On a reflexive note, it bears mentioning that the comparative na-
ture of my research design leads me to bring certain presuppositions to these tex-
tual analyses. Since I wish to illuminate competing conservative Protestant
scriptural readings, my analysis of these texts focuses primarily on the ideological
and epistemologica! divergences between these conservative evangelical family
commentators. Still, to provide an adequate portrayal of these specialists' views,
I nevertheless specify points of convergence where appropriate.
One area of conservative evangelical family life which has garnered consid-
erable scholarly interest is conservative Christian support for patriarchal spousal
relations, specifically manifest in the concept of "wifely submission" (e.g.,
Bartkowski 1995b; McNamara 1985; Pevey, Williams, and Ellison 1996; Rose
1987, 1990; Stacey 1990; see Peek, Lowe, and Williams 1991 for a review of re-
lated empirical studies). In what follows, I contrast competing scriptural inter-
pretations of submission in "Christian" spousal relations advanced in two best-
selling conservative Protestant gender/family manuals, and trace these divergent
264 SOCIOLOGY OF RELIGION
"Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as
Christ is the head of the Church, his body, and is himself its Savior. As the Church is sub-
ject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands" (Ephesians 5:22
24). . . . To be submissive means to yield humble and intelligent obedience to an ordained
power or authority.... God did not give this law of wives being submissive to their husbands
because He had a grudge against women; on the contrary, He established this order for the
protection of women and the harmony of the home. He means for a woman to be sheltered from
many of the rough encounters of life. Scripture knows nothing of a 50-50 "democratic mar-
riage." God's order is 100-100. The wife is 100 percent a wife, the husband 100 percent a
husband (Christenson 1970:32-33, emphasis in the original).
In the world a woman is subject to physical attack, and therefore needs her husband's protec-
tion. This is a basic, universal fact of existence and is written into the folkways of every age
and culture. A woman's vulnerability, however, does not stop at the physical level. It includes
also vulnerability at the emotional, psychological, and spiritual level. Here, too, she needs a
husband's authority and protection (Christenson 1970:34-35).
the Bible teaches a subordination of the wife to her husband. In this both the Old and New
Testaments agree. This subordination is grounded upon the creation. "Adam was formed first,
then Eve." It is further grounded upon the (all of our first parents. aAdam was not deceived
(as long as he stood alone), but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor" (I
Timodiy 2:13,14) (Christenson 1970:39).
BEYOND BIBLICAL LITERALISM AND INERRANCY 265
Many a woman has memorized the submission Scriptures, gone to women's study groups on
submission, gone forward in church to recommit her life to submitting to the role of wife, only
to blow up hours later at an insensitive husband.. . . The solution is not to try to show more re-
spect to your husband (Gabriel 1993:104, emphasis added).
God is neither male nor female. God is both . . . [and] created you to reflect both the initiat-
ing and the nurturing in a balance appropriate to your sexual identity as a female. The Bible
clearly teaches that God is comfortable with equality and with difference. In God's eyes, one
sex is not better than the other (Gabriel 1993:39-40, emphasis in original).
^ This debate between Larry Christenson and Ginger Gabriel mirrors a broader debate among religious
conservatives concerning the respective merits of wifely submission and mutual submission in conservative
Protestant families (see Groothuis 1994).
266 SOCIOLOGY OF RELIGION
In some "Christian" literature the "feeling" characteristics are referred to as "feminine" and
women are urged to be more emotional. The "thinking" characteristics are considered to be
"masculine." Men are told to be more cerebral. The reality is that these characteristics are
spread across the genders. . . . God created man and woman to reflect His own image. God
intended both men and women to be both thinking and feeling. A whole person is in touch
with both sides (Gabriel 1993:45, emphasis in original).
Second, while both Gabriel and Christenson believe that the Bible's Genesis
account of creation literally describes the origins of humankind, they disagree
sharply about the account's meaning and implications for gender relations. While
Christenson legitimates the imperative for wifely submission via his reading of
Genesis (Eve sinned first and was cursed by God), Gabriel's view of the Bible as
recommending mutual submission reflects a very different understanding of the
Genesis account of humankind's primordial "fall." She stresses that "Adam and
Eve sinned" (Gabriel 1993:95, emphasis added) and that they both had to face
the consequences of their disobedience. In fact, she maintains that Adam's at-
tempt to lay responsibility upon Eve for their mutual transgression "is the first
example of the first couple dishing out shame and blame" (Gabriel 1993:104).
In sum, then, this case study lends confirmation to the hermeneutic insight
that competing textual interpretations can be traced to the distinctive presuppo-
sitions which readers bring to texts. Specifically, contrasting interpretations of
the biblical mandate for "submission" in conservative Christian spousal relations
seem closely related to the particular "prejudices" (in this case, assumptions
about the essential nature of men and women) which conservative Protestant
readers import into the interpretive process. Next, I demonstrate how the
hermeneutic circle sheds light on divergent scriptural readings concerning
"Christian" child discipline.
In my opinion, spankings should be reserved for the moment a child (age ten or less) expresses
a defiant "I will not!" or "You shut up!" When a youngster tries this kind of stiff-necked re-
bellion, you had better take it out of him, and pain is a marvelous purifier. When a nose-to-
nose confrontation occurs between you and your child, it is not the time to have a discussion
about the virtues of obedience. It is not the occasion to send him in his room to pout. It is not
appropriate to wait until poor, tired old dad comes plodding in from work, just in time to
handle the conflicts of the day. You have drawn a line in the dirt, and the child has deliber-
ately flopped his big hairy toe across it. Who is going to win? Who has the most courage?
Who is in charge here? If you do not answer these questions conclusively for the child, he will
precipitate other battles designed to ask them again and again. It is the ultimate paradox of
childhood that a youngster wants to be controlled, but he insists that his parents earn the
right to control him (Dobson 1970:16).
[parenting] standard which was clearly outlined in the Old and New Testaments,
and that deviation is costing us a heavy toll in the form of social turmoil."
Despite this general point of epistemological agreement, however, Dobson and
Campbell interpret the Bible with radically different assumptions about (1) the
Bible's overall meaning as a complete text and, (2) the meaning of individual
passages within it (which, taken together, comprise the hermeneutic circle).
Campbell's opposition to the frequent use of corporal punishment can be
traced to a hermeneutic scriptural interpretation which construes the overall
message of the Bible as a divine imperative to love children and others.
It makes me sad to see people emphasize the four verses from Proverbs which deal with using
the rod (13:24, 23:13-14, 29:15), and then see them virtually ignore Scripture which deals
with the child's basic need love. Hundreds of verses in the Bible instruct us to be under-
standing, compassionate, sensitive, nurturing, and forgiving. Our children are deserving, and
have every right to these expressions of love (Campbell 1989:80-81, emphasis added).
Proponents of corporal punishment seem to have forgotten that the shepherd's rod referred to
in Scripture was used almost exclusively for guiding the sheep, not beating them. The shep-
herds would gently steer the sheep, especially the lambs, by simply holding the rod to block
them from going in the wrong direction and then gently nudge them toward the right direc-
tion. If the rod was (or is) an instrument used principally for beating, I would have a difficult
time with Psalm 23 "Thy rod and Thy staff, they comfort me" (Campbell 1992:93, emphasis
in original).
Therefore, the hermeneutic circle which Campbell employs regards the Bible's
overall message as one of love and forgiveness, and "literally" interprets individ-
ual passages referring to the "rod" not as a stick or switch with which to punish
children but as a shepherd's staff traditionally used for guidance and direction.
Dobson's interpretation of the Bible's overall message, and of individual bib-
lical references to the "rod," contrasts sharply with that proposed by Campbell.
Dobson's hermeneutic scriptural interpretation presupposes that the Bible's
overall message is not merely one of love and forgiveness, but rather consists
largely of themes of sin and punishment.
[My mother] taught me about heaven and hell and the great Judgment Day when those who
have been covered by the blood of Jesus will be separated eternally from those who have not.
It made a profound impression on me. Many parents would not agree with my mother's deci-
sion to acquaint me with the nature of sin and its consequences. They have said to me, O h , I
wouldn't want to paint such a negative picture for my kids. I want them to think of God as a
loving Father, not as a wrathful judge who punishes us." In so doing, they withhold a portion
of the truth from their children. He is both a God of love and a God of judgment. There are
116 places in the Bible where we are told to "fear the Lord." By what authority do we elimi-
nate these references in describing who God is to our children? (Dobson 1987:107-08).
BEYOND BIBLICAL LITERALISM AND INERRANCY 269
"Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from
him" (Proverbs 22:15, KJV). This recommendation has troubled some people, leading them to
claim that the "rod" was not a paddle, but a measuring stick with which to evaluate the child.
The following passage was included [in the Bible] expressly for those who were confused on
that point. "Withhold not correction from the child; for if thou beatesi him with the rod, he
shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell" (Proverbs
23:13-14, KJV) (Dobson 1970:197, emphasis in the original).
CONCLUSION
and Bartkowski, in press; Ellison and Sherkat 1993; see Ammerman 1987 for ex
ceptional ethnographic illustrations). From this perspective, the interpretive
community under the leadership of its interpretive authorities such as pastors
and theologians determines the "ground rules" for scriptural interpretation.
Hermeneutic theory could serve to complement the interpretive community
model in several significant ways. Drawing on hermeneutic insights, researchers
might (1) determine if discernible interpretive cleavages emerge around specific
groups within and across interpretive communities (e.g., younger versus older
individuals, men as opposed to women), (2) specify the hermeneutic sources of
such cleavages (i.e., divergent presuppositions and/or competing interpretive
strategies), and (3) examine how these different groups seek to reconcile con
flicting biblical interpretations (via appeals to social scientific research, the
community's ethical standards, their own personal experiences, or to "preferred"
sections of the text [e.g., the New Testament vs. the Old Testament]). Given
the well-recognized centrality of the Bible to the conservative Christian world-
view, such research may provide much needed clarification of one of the most
complex problems concerning the sociological study of contemporary conserva
tive Protestantism.
REFERENCES
Coward, H. 1988. Sacred word and sacred text: Scripture in world religions. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis
Books.
Dixon, R. D., L. P. Jones, and R. C. Lowery. 1992. Biblical authority questions: Two choices in
identifying conservative Christian subcultures. Sociological Analysis 53:63-72.
Dobson, J. 1970. Dare to discipline. Wheaton, IL: Living Books/Tyndale House.
. 1978. The strong-willed child: Birth througji adolescence. Wheaton, IL: Living Books/Tyndale
House.
. 1987. Parenting isnt for cowards. Dallas, TX: Word Publishing.
Ellison, C. G., and J. P. Bartkowski. In press. Religion and the legitimation of violence: The case of
conservative Protestantism and corporal punishment. In The web of violence: From
interpersonal to oboi, edited by L. R. Kurtz and J. Turpin. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Ellison, C. G., J. P. Bartkowski, and M. L. Segal. 1996. Conservative Protestantism and the
parental use of corporal punishment. Social Forces 74:1003-1028.
. In press. Do conservative Protestants spank more often? Further evidence from the
National Survey of Families and Households. Social Science Quarterly.
Ellison, C. G., and D. E. Sherkat. 1993. Conservative Protestantism and support for corporal
punishment. American Sociological Review 58:131-144.
Erikson, K. T. 1966. Wayward puntans. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Gabriel, G. 1993. Being a woman of God. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers.
Gadamer, H. G. 1982. Truth and method. New York: Crossroad.
Grasmick, H. G., R. J. Bursik, Jr., and M. Kimpel. 1991. Protestant fundamentalism and attitudes
toward corporal punishment of children. Violence and Victims 6:283-297.
Grasmick, H. G., C. S. Morgan, and M. B. Kennedy. 1992. Support for corporal punishment in the
schools: A comparison of the effects of socio-economic status and religion. Social Science
Quarterly 73:179-189.
Groothuis, R. M. 1994. Women caugjht in the conflict: The culture war between traditionalism and
feminism. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Brothers.
Hunter, J. D. 1981. Operationalizing evangelicalism: A review, critique, and proposal. Sociological
Analysis 42:363-372.
Jeanrond, W. 1991. Theological hermeneutics: Development and significance. London: MacMillan.
Jelen, T. G. 1989. Biblical literalism and inerrancy. Does the difference make a difference?
Sociological Analysis 49:421-429.
Jelen T. G., C. Wilcox, and C. E. Smidt. 1990. Biblical literalism and inerrancy: A methodological
investigation. Sociological Analysis 51:307-331.
Lienesch, M. 1991. "Train up a child": Conceptions of child-rearing in Christian conservative
social thought. Comparative Social Research 13:203-224.
McNamara, P. H. 1985. The New Christian Right's view of the family and it's social science
critics: A study in differing presuppositions. Journal of Marriage and the Family 47:449-458.
Mueller-Vollmer, ., ed. 1986. The hermeneutics reader: Texts of the German tradition from the
Enlightenment to the present. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Nevin, J. W. 1849a. The sect system. The Mercersberg Review 1:482-507.
. 1849b. The sect system. The Mercersberg Review 1:521-539.
Peek, C. W., G. D. Lowe, and L. S. Williams. 1991. Gender and God's word: Another look at
religious fundamentalism and sexism. Social Forces 69:1205-1221.
Pevey, C , C. L. Williams, and C. G. Ellison. 1996. Male god imagery and female submission.
Qualitative Sociology 19:173-193.
Ricoeur, P. 1976. Interpretation theory: Discourse and the surplus of meaning. Fort Worth, TX: The
Texas Christian University Press.
Roof, W. C , and W. McKinney. 1987. American mainline religion. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers
University Press.
272 SOCIOLOGY OF RELIGION
As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.
No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.
This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).
About ATLAS:
The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.