This article was downloaded by:[Bielo, James S.]
On: 28 March 2008
Access Details: [subscription number 791765852]
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Culture and Religion

An Interdisciplinary Journal

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713694811

On the failure of 'meaning': Bible reading in the
anthropology of Christianity

James S. Bielo

a

a

Anthropology Department, Michigan State University, East Lansing, USA

Online Publication Date: 01 March 2008
To cite this Article: Bielo, James S. (2008) 'On the failure of 'meaning': Bible reading
in the anthropology of Christianity', Culture and Religion, 9:1, 1 - 21
To link to this article: DOI: 10.1080/14755610801954839
URL:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14755610801954839

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use:

http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article maybe used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,
re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly
forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be
complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be
independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or
arising out of the use of this material.

Downloaded By: [Bielo, James S.] At: 16:12 28 March 2008

On the failure of ‘meaning’: Bible reading in the anthropology

of Christianity

James S. Bielo*

Adjunct Assistant Professor, Anthropology Department, Michigan State University,

East Lansing, USA

In this article I contribute to research in the anthropology of Christianity by
exploring the practice of group Bible reading. I focus on the analytical
category of ‘meaning’ and what happens when readers continually fail to
produce defined, resolved readings of particular Biblical texts. To investigate
these issues I draw on ethnographic fieldwork with a Missouri-Synod
Lutheran men’s group in the Midwestern United States, and their 12-week
study of the book of Proverbs. Based on in-depth analyses of group
interactions, I argue that, despite the lingering of multiple and
conflicting interpretations, the search for meaning encodes a distinct set of
cultural concerns. For example, presuppositions about the Bible’s authority,
textuality and relevance, and notions of religious identity are embedded
within the group’s interpretive discourse. Following research in the recent
volume The limits of meaning, I maintain that ‘meaning’ is best
conceptualized as a process that unfolds through social practice rather than
a product that is discovered.

Keywords:

Christianity; Bible; reading; meaning; discourse; United States;

Evangelicalism

From June through September 2005 a men’s Bible study group affiliated with the
Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (LCMS) gathered at a local restaurant in the
Midwestern United States to discuss the Old Testament book of Proverbs. This
article analyses the conversational content and cultural context of these 12
meetings;

1

in particular, the striking characteristic that the group’s discussions

seldom settled on defined meaning(s) of Biblical texts. In the place of consensus,
textual meaning frequently remained unresolved and multiple interpretations were
left to linger. This counter-intuitive observation prompts the question: how do we
make sense of this approach to performing Bible reading and group study? And,
of broader significance, what theoretical insights emerge from this group’s
acceptance of meaning’s uncertainty?

To answer these questions, I address an analytical problem surrounding the

category of ‘meaning’ raised by a recent edited volume—The limits of meaning:
Case studies in the anthropology of Christianity (Engelke and Tomlinson 2006).

ISSN 1475-5610 print/ISSN 1475-5629 online

q

2008 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/14755610801954839
http://www.informaworld.com

*Email: [e-mail]

Culture and Religion
Vol. 9, No. 1, March 2008, 1–21

Downloaded By: [Bielo, James S.] At: 16:12 28 March 2008

In their introduction to this collection, Matt Tomlinson and Matthew Engelke
observe a lacuna among anthropological studies of meaning:

. . . anthropologists need to address those cases in their research that challenge

‘meaning’s’ fruition to understand when and how it is a relevant, useful term . . . By
analyzing moments of [meaning’s] failure, we argue, scholars can approach
meaning not as a function or a product to be uncovered, but as a process and potential
fraught with uncertainty and contestation. (Engelke and Tomlinson 2006, 2)

Tomlinson and Engelke argue that anthropological theorizing about ‘meaning’
has not accounted for situations where meaning is absent, when meaningfulness
is not achieved, and what social consequences follow in the wake of such non-
success. In short, ethnographic and theoretical attention must be devoted to
documenting ‘the limits of meaning’ (Engelke and Tomlinson 2006, 1), and to
developing frameworks for understanding those limits.

The limits of meaning brings together eight essays documenting the failure of

meaning among Christian believers in various institutional contexts, with case
studies from Europe, Africa, Melanesia, Indonesia, South America, and the
United States. Conspicuously absent from this fine collection, however, is an
ethnographic account of ‘meaning’s’ limits explicitly in regard to Bible reading
and interpretation.

2

In this article, I add to this productive line of inquiry an

analysis of a men’s Bible study and their reading of Proverbs. As mentioned
above, a defining feature of this group’s interpretive discourse is a lack of
consensus when discussing the meaning of particular Biblical texts. I present
three representative interactions to illustrate how the men debated and disagreed,
raised conflicting possibilities, but did not resolve these interpretations. In light of
this empirical observation, and in support of Engelke and Tomlinson’s central
thesis, I argue that it is the process of searching for textual meaning that most
directly engages this group’s cultural and institutional life. More specifically,
I argue that an analysis of their search for meaning reveals a series of cultural
concerns, including: presuppositions about the Bible’s authority, textuality and
relevance; understandings of religious identity; and fundamental ideas about
small group Bible study as a social practice. This analysis is situated within the
analytical context of the anthropology of Christianity; in particular, an emerging
body of research on the social life of the Bible.

Anthropology, Christianity, and the Bible

The anthropology of Christianity, as a self-conscious project, is a rather new
tradition of research and theorizing that seeks to understand the processes and
logics that operate among Christian communities (Bielo 2007b; Cannell 2006;
Robbins 2003, 2007; Scott 2005). The aim of this burgeoning field is not simply
to assemble ethnographic documentations of Christian rituals and institutions.
Rather, the goal is to establish a ‘community of scholarship in which those who
study Christian societies formulate common problems, read each other’s works,
and recognize themselves as contributors to a coherent body of research’

J.S. Bielo

2

Downloaded By: [Bielo, James S.] At: 16:12 28 March 2008

(Robbins 2007, 5). In short, a sustainable ‘anthropology of Christianity’ rests on
being an analytic tradition in its own right, exploring comparative opportunities
for theoretical and methodological development. The study of distinctly
Christian—namely, Protestant and charismatic—ideas about the nature of
language and signification is perhaps the most developed subject thus far.
Expectations of sincerity, spontaneity, and intimacy in linguistic exchange have
been observed in multiple traditions and performative domains (for example,
Coleman 2006a; Keane 2007; Robbins 2001; Shoaps 2002). The limits of
meaning offers another such comparative arena—the category of ‘meaning’, its
enactments, boundaries, presuppositions, and failures.

Questions of ‘meaning’ in Christian life are inextricably linked to uses and

understandings of the Bible. Given the centrality of scripture in Christian
discourse and praxis, there are surprisingly few anthropological accounts of how
the Bible figures into the cultural logics of Christianity, or what actually occurs
when Christian believers interact with their sacred text. There are a few notable
exceptions to this generalization, five of which stand out for their direct focus on
the social life of the Bible.

An oft-cited text among anthropologists of Christianity (although the work

itself is not articulated within this framework) is Vincent Crapanzano’s (2000)
Serving the word: Literalism in America from the pulpit to the bench. Crapanzano
argues that literalism is a dominant hermeneutic in the United States, and is
exemplified by Fundamentalist Christianity. As an interpretive style, literalism is
defined by a series of linguistic ideologies—namely, the privileging of referential
meaning over more context-dependent communicative functions. Ultimately, for
Crapanzano, literalism is a destructive force, colonizing the hermeneutics of
everyday life and the reading of non-scriptural texts among conservative
Christians.

3

A text cited as frequently, if not more so, is Susan Harding’s (2000)

The book of Jerry Falwell: Fundamentalist language and politics. While
Harding’s work shares much with Crapanzano (e.g. an interest in conservative
Evangelicalism, an acceptance of literalism as a viable hermeneutic mode, and a
semiotically grounded inquiry), she focuses on the rhetorical qualities of how
born-again Christians relate to scripture. Harding describes the continued
cultivation of typological interpretations, where speakers and audiences position
themselves and their interlocutors within Biblical narratives. The most common
instantiation of this is the ongoing search by Evangelicals to apply the Bible to
everyday life. This emphasis on establishing Biblical relevance is also central
to Brian Malley’s (2004) How the Bible works: An anthropological study of
Evangelical biblicism. Also working among conservative Christians in the
United States, Malley proposes a cognitive-oriented model for how these
Evangelicals read and understand the Bible. Malley’s central claim is that
contemporary Evangelicals are inheritors of an ‘interpretive tradition’ (2004, 73),
where beliefs require a textual basis and are transmitted through particular texts.
The primary style of exegesis that occurs among lay Evangelicals is the continued
attempt to affirm the Bible’s relevance to the everyday lives of readers.

Culture and Religion

3

Downloaded By: [Bielo, James S.] At: 16:12 28 March 2008

Eva Keller’s (2005) The road to clarity: Seventh-day Adventism in Madagascar

diverges from the previous three works’ interest in outlining distinct forms of
hermeneutic activity. She suggests that the practice of Bible study—both
individual and collective—is the most crucial component of religious commitment
for Seventh-day Adventists. Keller goes on to argue that these Christians read the
Bible as ‘normal scientists’ because they are dedicated to Biblical learning,
investigation, and questioning, but only in so far as they reproduce beliefs about the
Bible’s veracity. Theirs is a limited paradigm, determined to find certain
propositions true (e.g. the Bible’s absolute and timeless authority) and others false
(e.g. Darwinian evolution) (Keller 2006). Most recently, Matthew Engelke has
added a fascinating ethnographic case to this body of research in A problem of
presence: Beyond scripture in an African church (Engelke 2007). The Masowe
Apostolics of Zimbabwe discount written Biblical texts in favour of oral
performances of scripture. The former are said to disrupt one’s relationship with
God, while the latter are said to nurture it. The Bible remains present and
authoritative among these African Christians, but only through its absence as a
material artefact. Their approach to the Bible is grounded in a semiotic ideology
that favours orality over literacy, and elevates the immaterial over the material.

These anthropological accounts of Bible use and reading are grounded in the

broader analytical question of ‘scripturalism’. Scholars of comparative religion,
most famously Wilfred Cantwell Smith (1993), have called attention to the fact
that ‘scriptures’ rely on communities of practice to recognize them as such. For a
text to be ‘sacred’ or ‘scriptural’ it must be endowed, and continue to be
endowed, with the appropriate significance by a defined group of interlocutors
(Levering 1989). This relational, socially constituted definition of scripture
should be followed by detailed empirical accounts of how such texts are
employed in actual forms of institutional practice (Malley 2004). Investigations
of the social life of the Bible serve precisely this purpose, helping to illustrate
what communities of practice do to assert and re-assert texts as ‘scripture’.

The analytical treatment of the social life of the Bible, and ‘scriptures’ more

generally, index two observations crucial for the argument I am pursuing. First,
how Christians interact with the Bible—hermeneutically and otherwise—needs to
be a central analytical problem for the emerging project of the anthropology of
Christianity. Indeed, as this nascent field of study expands, it will continue to
confront research and theorizing that must address the position(s) of scripture in
Christian cultures. Yet, despite several well-formulated models and a series of
fascinating case studies, there does not yet exist a dominant framework for
understanding Christian Biblicism. Thus, any work regarding the social life of the
Bible should be directed towards ferreting out the principles and processes that
structure Bible use. Second, the anthropological research that is available on this
subject continues to find Biblical interlocutors who arrive at shared interpretations
of scripture. The studies described above are replete with tacit and overt statements
about the ways in which individuals and groups promote defined interpretations.
The most frequently documented hermeneutic activity is the ongoing search to

J.S. Bielo

4

Downloaded By: [Bielo, James S.] At: 16:12 28 March 2008

connect Biblical texts to the life of the reader, thereby affirming the Bible’s eternal
relevance. The consensus to be culled from this research is not so much a stability
surrounding particular textual meanings as it is a reliability that meaning will be
identified, usually in the form of personal application.

In this article, I address the intersection of Christianity, Biblicism, and

‘meaning’. Based on my analysis of a LCMS men’s Bible study, I argue that
textual meaning is not always (or often) something that is resolved through
interpretive discourse. Moreover, I demonstrate that the identification of settled
textual meanings is not the most significant facet of Bible reading; instead, it is the
process of discussing and evaluating various possibilities of meaning. It is in this
search for meaning—illustrated by three group interactions where uncertainty is
left to linger—that this group of conservative Evangelical Christians addresses
core issues of faith, including presuppositions about the Bible, religious identity,
and the nature of group study. I begin with a profile of small-group Bible study in
US Protestantism, and an ethnographic introduction to the LCMS men.

The LCMS men

The LCMS men represent a widespread movement among American
Protestants—meeting in small groups for Bible study, prayer, and fellowship.
Every week an estimated 30 – 40 million Christians in the United States gather
for Bible study, making it the most prolific type of small group—religious
or otherwise—in American society (Wuthnow 1994). The ubiquity of this
institutional form, however, is only part of its significance. Small groups play an
important role in local congregational life, providing a forum for decision-
making among church leaders, an opportunity to convert new believers and
recruit new members, and a means of socializing these newcomers into local
church life (Ammerman 1997; Eiesland 2000; Roberts 2005). Most importantly,
small groups have a distinct sociological impact. Bible study is a unique activity
in the Christian life because of its potential as a site for active dialogue (Bielo
2004, 2007a; Davie 1995). Small groups allow believers to engage in open,
reflexive, and critical discussion about core issues of belief and practice. Thus,
Bible study is a key institution within American Protestantism, and precisely the
type of social context where cultural categories of identity and ethos are
articulated, reproduced, and challenged (Bourdieu 1977). The LCMS men do
well to illustrate just how dynamic, complex, and attractive this activity can be.

As a denomination, the LCMS promotes much the same theological orthodoxy

as other conservative Evangelical traditions (Noll 1992). However, unlike most
Protestant denominations in America’s culture of conservative Christianity, LCMS
membership has been declining steadily for decades (Jones 2002). Despite this
national trend, the local congregation of the LCMS men has grown rapidly over the
past three years. Currently, the registered church membership is over 700, and
the weekly worship attendance is more than 350. This has culminated in a new,
multi-millionaire dollar building project that began in 2006. The growth of the

Culture and Religion

5

Downloaded By: [Bielo, James S.] At: 16:12 28 March 2008

congregation has resulted in, and been aided by, a proliferation of small groups. At
its height, the small group programme consisted of 22 weekly groups. Founded in
1994, the LCMS men are one of the most longstanding groups in the congregation,
and they exemplify the stress placed on Bible study by the church.

Every Thursday morning—except for holidays, severe weather, and special

events—the LCMS men gather at the same local restaurant from seven to eight
o’clock in the morning. The original facilitator, Eric, is a lifelong LCMS member
and still attends every week. For close to eight years Eric organized the group’s
meetings, and maintained a weekly attendance of between eight and 10
participants. In 2003, after accepting the position as head pastor, Dave took over
the role of facilitator. The group has grown steadily ever since, and the weekly
attendance during my research tenure fluctuated between 10 and 27 men, with a
mean attendance of 19 men.

Dave’s acumen as a facilitator is one reason for the group’s success. He is

hardly an imposing figure, standing five foot five with a bookish demeanour. He
is affable, with an inviting manner and a wry sense of humour. He is extremely
well liked throughout the congregation, and he plays the role of facilitator to near
perfection. The men raise their hands to speak, and Dave notifies them when the
floor is theirs. He keeps primarily to open-ended questions. He tacks a brief
comment onto the end of their contributions, creating a space for others to pick up
the conversational thread. Dave has a way of softening dogmatic comments, and
sharpening the more benign ones. He avoids long, preachy exhortations, and
manages to raise potentially controversial and divisive issues without being
controversial or divisive. The men respond well to his leadership style, and many
commented to me throughout my fieldwork on how much they appreciated Dave
as a pastor, a Bible study leader, and a person.

During an interview, Dave reflected on the composition of the group: ‘I eat

breakfast with the leadership of this church every Thursday’. Most of the building
committee, the youth minister, the church administrator, several ministry directors,
and most of the church elders are regular participants. The group is highly educated,
including lawyers, education consultants for the state, engineers, college
professors, and physicians. All of the men are white and, aside from the youth
minister who is 25 years old, the group is composed of middle-aged and older
adults, with a mean age of 56 years old. As noted above, the attendance fluctuated,
but there was a core group of 11 participants who attended nearly every meeting.
Several participants, including some who attended less frequently, were voices of
greater authority within the group. Dave’s participation was the most influential in
the group’s discourse, but several other individuals often spoke at length and were
expected to contribute when difficult questions arose.

The room itself was filled with circular tables, and the men typically filled up

the three or four closest to the front of the room. Between five and seven men sat
at each table and, with a few exceptions, most gravitated toward the same table
and seat each week. Dave stood at the front of the room, clearly signifying his
role as facilitator. The LCMS men did not use any formal study text to guide their

J.S. Bielo

6

Downloaded By: [Bielo, James S.] At: 16:12 28 March 2008

reading of Proverbs, although their meetings did follow a defined structure. For
each meeting they read two to three chapters on their own time during the week,
and then gathered for the hour-long group discussion. Dave opened each meeting
with a brief summary of the reading, identified any overarching themes (e.g.
lying, adultery), and connections with other Biblical texts. He then opened the
discussion to everyone, asking what verses ‘stuck out’ to them. Roughly halfway
through the meeting Dave identified the verses that he found most confusing or
thought-provoking, if they had not been raised already. If time still remained, he
returned to asking the group what verses they highlighted or had questions about.
Dave was always prompt to begin the brief closing prayer at or near the eight
o’clock hour. On the whole, the LCMS men’s discussions were detailed, frank,
lively, and laced with humour. The consistency and fluidity of each week’s
exchanges are very much an attractive feature to potential members, and an
important factor in the group’s continued growth.

Searching for meaning

I present the LCMS men as a case study for an argument: Bible reading among
conservative American Evangelicals is less about establishing defined textual
meanings than it is the process of searching for meaning, wherein cultural
presuppositions are embedded and articulated in the midst of the group’s
interpretive discourse. As an issue of ‘meaning’s failure’ (Engelke and
Tomlinson 2006, 2), the example of the LCMS men is provocative. The cases
presented in The limits of meaning emphasize ethnographic situations that are
idiosyncratic, isolated, or surprising. They are, in short, not cases indicative of
typical social practice. Just the opposite is true of the LCMS men, where the lack
of consensus surrounding textual meaning was a defining feature in their study of
Proverbs. Throughout the group’s 12 meetings, there were 36 texts (single or
multiple verses from Proverbs) discussed at length. Eight of these were
concerned solely with the relevance and personal application of scripture. Of the
remaining 28 discussions, 13 resulted in an agreed-upon textual meaning and 15
consisted of multiple (often conflicting) interpretations that lingered without any
attempt at resolution. This distribution of hermeneutic activity makes clear that
the ‘failure’ to define meaning is not an aberration for the LCMS men. I examine
three of these interactions in detail to illustrate the series of cultural concerns that
are embedded in this search for meaning.

The first example is drawn from the group’s seventh meeting where they

discussed Proverbs 20, 21, and 22. Scott, a man in his early 50s and a mid-life
convert to the LCMS church, questioned Proverbs 22:6: Train a child in the way
he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it:

4

Example 1.

1 Scott: I guess my question is, how much of that [verse] can you hang on to?
2 Dave: Is that a promise? Is that a general observation? Is it an unswerving

Culture and Religion

7

Downloaded By: [Bielo, James S.] At: 16:12 28 March 2008

3

truth? What do you think?

4 Scott: I don’t think it’s a promise. But, sometimes as parents you’d like to
5

hang on to that. You think, ‘Yeah, maybe some day she’ll come back

6

to church.’

7 Dave: Right. Take it this way. This is a passage that heaps a tremendous
8

amount of guilt on parents, because the kid goes the way you didn’t

9

want the kid to go. And, all you can think of is, ‘Maybe I didn’t train

10

the kid right.’

11 Eric: It’s also a comfort to parents. When our daughter was with a cult
12

for a while, we came back to this verse a lot.

13 Dave: Does this suggest something that we should be focusing on
14

as parents? Does this suggest something that we should be focusing

15

on as a congregational community trying to support parents?

16

Gene:

I’ve had some who would interpret that as saying train up a child

17

in the way HE should go, and not the way YOU want them to go.

18

And, that there is an emphasis there that, maybe what you want for

19

this kid is not the way he should go. And, so, you need to look

20

carefully at that.

21 Dave: Would this be speaking against the father whose dream it always was
22

for his child to be an investment banker? But, clearly, the child has

23

the markings of a street artist. And, ‘Fathers be wise.’

24 Dan: I guess the real question comes in is, is it a lesson as to wisdom or is it
25

speaking of our faith? And, that’s, I think, the real issue we need to

26

look at. Are we looking at train up a child in terms of their faith, and

27

that even though they depart from it for a while, God will cause

28

something to happen in their lives that will bring them back? And,

29

I think that’s really what happens. God will place something in

30

their lives that they can’t handle at some point in their lives, even

31

if it’s on their deathbed.

32 Dave: I think this is one of those words, like I suppose all the words,
33

that we need to understand in terms of letting scripture interpret

34

scripture. You always have to see this in the context of everything

35

else that’s said. For instance, train up a child in the way he should

36

go and when he’s old he won’t depart. ‘Oh, my kid turned out to

37

be this wayward nere-do-well, good-for-nothing. Maybe I failed.

38

It’s my fault.’ Well, but then we balance that out with another verse

39

that says the soul that sins shall die. There’s a personal culpability,

40

and so we balance it out. But, there’s a truth that, generally speaking,

41

you work at training a kid and that child will have something later on.

In this interaction, the LCMS men produce six distinct readings of Proverbs 22:6.
In line 4, Scott asserts that the text should not be read as a ‘promise’ from God,
but that it is still a source of hope for parents. In lines 7 – 10, Dave raises the
possibility that the text is a source of guilt rather than hope, which Eric refutes in

J.S. Bielo

8

Downloaded By: [Bielo, James S.] At: 16:12 28 March 2008

lines 11 – 12. In lines 16 – 20, Gene argues that the text is about parenting wisdom.
Dan disagrees with this in lines 24 – 31, suggesting that Proverbs 22:6 is a matter
of religious faith not everyday instruction. Lastly, Dave returns to his original
question from line 2 to assert that the text is a general truth about the nature of
reality. Yet, no one attempts to resolve Dave and Eric’s conflicting statements
regarding ‘guilt’ and ‘comfort,’ or Gene and Dan’s statements about wisdom
versus faith.

In the midst of this uncertainty, the men articulate a series of concerns they

carry as Bible readers, as American Evangelicals, and as Missouri-Synod
Lutherans. Dave’s initial question—‘Is that a promise?’—indexes one such
concern. Throughout their study of Proverbs the group wrestled with the
interpretive dilemma of whether or not individual texts should be read as
guarantees for the faithful (‘promises’ from God) or as statements about what is
typical, normal, and expected (‘general truths’). This is a crucial distinction for
the LCMS men, and for conservative Christians more generally, because they
understand the Bible to be the absolutely authoritative ‘Word of God.’ The Bible
prevails over any other source of instruction—textual or otherwise—in matters
practical, moral, and spiritual. This authority derives from the Bible’s presumed
inspired character; it is not simply a human product, but God’s revelation to
humanity. For these Christians, the Bible is the only text that, in its entirety, bears
the co-authorship of the divine. It is unparalleled in power, influence, and
wisdom, and is wholly unique; revered and read unlike any other text (Malley
2004). The Bible is, in short, never wrong. Given this presupposition about the
nature of scripture, it is a serious matter to designate any text as a ‘promise’ from
God. If evidence is marshalled to the contrary—perhaps from other Biblical texts
or readers’ everyday experiences—then not only is a single text challenged, but
the nature of scripture as absolutely authoritative is thrown into question. Dave’s
question—‘Is that a promise?’—is a powerful one within this group, and its
answer entails serious consequences for Bible reading.

The problem of ‘promise’ posed by Proverbs 22:6 also occurs against the

backdrop of one individual’s contentious participation during previous meetings.
Peter was one of the youngest men in the group at 41 years of age, a successful
architect, and the son of a lifelong LCMS member who also attends the group
regularly. Peter is also the only group participant who is a member of a different
Protestant tradition. He first came to the group upon his father’s request, but stayed
because he appreciated the group’s dynamic and regular schedule. Peter belongs to
a non-denominational, Pentecostal church, placing him in substantial theological
distance from the other men. This theological dissonance was most apparent in his
insistence that the Bible is a ‘book of promises from beginning to end’. In three of
the first four meetings, Peter brought at least one text from Proverbs to the group’s
attention for this very reason. In the second meeting he read Proverbs 3:7 – 10

5

aloud, prefaced with ‘As your non-denom brother, I feel obligated that we don’t
skip over seven through ten’. Following his reading of the text he adds: ‘The Word
we believe in has right there healing and prosperity. So, the non-denoms that you

Culture and Religion

9

Downloaded By: [Bielo, James S.] At: 16:12 28 March 2008

guys are always beating up for healing and prosperity; it’s in there like Prego. I
mean, it’s in there.’ The group always responded to Peter’s requests that certain
texts be understood as promises with questions and challenges, asking him to
justify this interpretation. (Note how the minority status of Peter’s reading of the
text is marked by the requirement of a justification, an extremely rare occurrence in
the remainder of the group’s discourse.) On the third such occasion, a heated debate
ensued that Peter concluded with ‘I’m not trying to cause division. I’m just saying
there’s a lot in here that we need to get into.’ This was the last meeting Peter
attended, and there was no public discussion of his initial or continued absence. It
was clear that Peter’s departure issued directly from his theological/denominational
difference, crystallized by the interpretive dilemma of reading scripture as
‘promise.’ The main protestors to Peter’s argument were all lifelong LCMS
members, and this moment of tension within the life of the group highlights the
ongoing significance of denominational identity in the LCMS tradition. Unlike
many Evangelical traditions that are said to exist in a ‘post-denominational’ era
(Wuthnow 1988), the LCMS Church continues to emphasize the uniqueness and
correctness of their own historical tradition. This case of Bible interpretation, then,
foregrounds the identity politics of defining the boundaries of religious Self. In
short, ‘non-denoms’ read Proverbs uniformly as ‘promise’; ‘proper’ Lutherans
do not.

6

In addition to these cultural concerns embedded in the hermeneutics of

‘promise,’ the group’s discussion is grounded in a key presupposition of
Evangelical Biblicism. Again, this is articulated most clearly in Dave’s
participation: ‘I think this is one of those words, like I suppose all the words that
we need to understand in terms of letting scripture interpret scripture. You always
have to see this in the context of everything else that’s said.’ This statement, and
the synthesis of verses that follows, signifies an assumption about the Bible’s
textuality. For these Christians, scripture is not understood as a group of disparate
texts, or as a single book lacking a unifying theme. Rather, it is understood as a
collection of texts that tells a cohesive story about the nature and purpose of God,
humanity, and the unfolding of time. Biblical texts are read within the context of
this unifying narrative, providing an interpretive frame to situate any verse,
chapter, or story. This assumption of unified textuality places certain traits, such
as contradiction, in opposition to the Bible’s inherent qualities. Scripture is
characterized by continuity of form and theme, with no room for contrary
meanings or purposes. Thus, the best means of interpreting problematic texts is to
consult other Biblical texts. Train a child is placed into the larger Biblical
narrative about wisdom, faith, and God’s agency.

This presupposition, much like Biblical authority, carries the dialogical

baggage of Protestant history and identity. The idea that the Bible is its own best
interpreter is a distinctly Reformation-period concept, championed as a core tenet
of Biblical interpretation by Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli
(Hagen 1985). This assumption of unified textuality has been a consistent
dividing line among American Protestants. In the late 1940s and early 1950s, for

J.S. Bielo

10

Downloaded By: [Bielo, James S.] At: 16:12 28 March 2008

instance, the notion of scripture as a consistent narrative posed continual
translation difficulties for the ecumenical committee working on the Revised
Standard Version of the Bible (Thuesen 1999). By incorporating this
presupposition into their interpretive discourse, the LCMS men engage in a
dual exercise of hermeneutic pedagogy and social memory. Adherence to the
Bible’s unified textuality simultaneously re-asserts that this is a proper and
necessary method of Bible interpretation, and one that is inherited through a
denominational genealogy that begins with Martin Luther. Much like the
problem of ‘promise’, textuality is a matter of both Bible reading and religious
identity.

This logic of Biblical textuality is especially important to the argument I am

pursuing about conceptualizing ‘meaning’ as a social process. The promise that
the Bible is internally consistent, and does contain a definite message, provides a
safe backdrop for the group’s inability to locate these meanings. The burden of
synthesizing and choosing among conflicting interpretations is eased by the
certain knowledge that scripture has a clear message, and one that is unmoving,
always there to be found. The group’s failure to settle on particular textual
meanings is thus a product of fallible readers, not a shifty, unreliable text. Yet, it is
through the search for meaning that this presupposition is re-articulated, made
public once again so that these readers leave with no doubt about the unity and
veracity of scripture.

The second example comes from the group’s 10th meeting. Here, the men

engage in a lengthy discussion of Proverbs 29:5: Whoever flatters his neighbour
is spreading a net for his feet. Gene, a lifelong LCMS member and a charter
member of the congregation, raises the initial confusion:

Example 2

1

Gene:

I’m not sure I understand that one.

2

Ben:

Well, when I first read that I interpreted his as being the neighbour’s

3

Dave:

Yeah, I think that’s right. So, what does that verse mean?

4

Dan:

Catch more flies with honey.

5 Gene: It seems like you’re doing something bad to them. I mean, if you’re
6

flattering your neighbour you’re doing something bad. That’s the

7

impression I’m getting here.

8

Dan:

It doesn’t say ‘unjustly’ or anything else. There’s no negative

9

adjective to it. There’s nothing wrong with flattery if it’s done for

10

a proper purpose.

11 Gene: Well, spreading a net doesn’t sound like something good to me.
12

Dan:

But, we’re fishers of men. We’re throwing nets all the time. And,

13

if we don’t flatter people, we’re not gonna catch them.

14 Al:

Flattery generally suggests a little bit of colour, a little deceit,

15

a little hyperbole. And, I don’t like the idea that the net is the

16

neighbour’s net. To me, it would be your own net because you’re

Culture and Religion

11

Downloaded By: [Bielo, James S.] At: 16:12 28 March 2008

17

always caught up in your own deceits.

18 Dave: That’s interesting. I think we always need to be on guard against
19

English translations, or any translations. They’re helpful as far as

20

they go, but they only go so far. And, we want scripture to interpret

21

scripture. I have to believe the Hebrew’s gonna pretty clear about

22

whose net that is. And, my guess is it is the neighbour’s net the way

23

that’s brought out in that. But, it’s important to do some searching

24

to really get at, what is the original? What is that word for ‘flattery’

25

in the Hebrew? I have no idea. And, is it negative or is it positive?

26

Because I would have heard it negative right off.

27 Al:

I like Dan’s better actually.

28 Dave: Bob, you had that same thought, right?
29

Bob:

Yeah. I read it as positive. Compliment people and you’ll make

30

a friend.

31 Dave: I think this is an example of the digging you have to do to sort out,
32

what is the point? And, even in these proverbs, I think there’s an

33

example of it where we wouldn’t be surprised, would we, to have

34

a proverb that says ‘whoever flatters a neighbour catches him in

35

his net,’ and have that be a negative one. And, then have the

36

next one say, ‘a little bit of honey catches,’ in a good sense. I mean,

37

we’ve seen some of these where there are two actions, one is

38

negative and the other is positive, and it’s sort of just the other side

39

of the same coin.

40 Gene: Maybe this is saying that if you flatter your neighbour you may get
41

your neighbour to believe something about himself, which maybe

42

it’s not exactly true and maybe that could lead this person into

43

trouble. It’s maybe a form of dishonesty, in a way.

44 Dave: And, taking a part of that, too, do we need to be on guard when
45

someone’s buttering us up? Are we about to fall into a net?

46 Eric: That’s the way I would look at it.
47 Dave: Yeah. What’s the old one-minute manager? You say something
48

positive to someone, then you nail them, and then you end with

49

something positive.

50 Scott: That was my first thought when I read it, was my experience back a
51

few decades ago when I bought machine tools. Well, it was before

52

you could go out to dinner and be entertained and all that. But, they

53

would schmooze, schmooze, schmooze, you know, to sell a few

54

million dollars worth of equipment. That’s the first thing

55

I thought of.

Ben is the first to respond to Gene’s confusion in line 2, claiming that the
pronoun his in the text refers to the neighbour. Beginning at line 4 and ending at
line 17, Dan, Gene, and Al attempt to classify the verse as either positive or
negative in nature. Al, although he agrees with Gene’s assessment that the verse

J.S. Bielo

12

Downloaded By: [Bielo, James S.] At: 16:12 28 March 2008

is negative, disagrees with Ben that his is talking about the neighbour. In lines
18– 26, Dave returns to the positive/negative distinction, arguing that the verse
actually encompasses both because it is a statement of situational wisdom. Gene,
in lines 40– 43, adds another possibility regarding wisdom, although of a different
type than Dave’s. In total, these men raise six interpretations of Proverbs 29:5
that diverge along grammatical, semantic, and generic axes. In the end, however,
these six possibilities are left unresolved. Yet, as with Example 1, despite the
absence of resolution, the group’s discussion encompasses a distinct set of
cultural concerns.

The issue of Bible translation is the most obvious example in this interaction.

The men wrestle over two features in particular: pronominal meaning (the
identity of his) and textual inferencing (is the verse positive or negative?). While
the men do not settle either of these disagreements, they reproduce two aspects
of conservative Evangelical Biblicism in the process. First, the certainty of
Biblical authority is maintained by Dave’s appeal to Hebrew. The confusion
surrounding English translation poses no challenge to the Bible’s authoritative
quality because such ambiguity, Dave assures, is absent in the original language.
The men do not have the necessary background knowledge to question this
assertion. But, more to the point, they do not have the inclination to raise such a
challenge because they endow the Bible’s original languages (Hebrew, Aramaic,
koine Greek) with divine authorship. In the discourse of group Bible study,
appealing to original languages is a common strategy for circumventing
questions of textual meaning. In this interpretive community it is enough to say
that the answer is clear in Hebrew, and unnecessary to provide a concrete
demonstration. This both upholds, and is upheld by, the presupposition that the
Bible is the absolutely authoritative ‘Word of God’ because of the language
ideology that authorial intention is captured by the original text (Crapanzano
2000).

Second, this interaction articulates the notion of the Bible as a ‘category’

(Malley 2004, 145), and the resulting appreciation for multiple translations. ‘The
Bible’ is not restricted to one version, or one type, of text. Rather, ‘the Bible’
encompasses various translations (including paraphrases) and forms (e.g.
children’s Bibles, narrative versions such as The Story).

7

Bible versions—despite

varying a great deal in semantic content and translation theory—do not pose any
challenge to Biblical authority because they are treated as resources, not as
mutually exclusive alternatives. Multiple translations were often consulted to find
the best expression of a particular text, not for proof of one translation’s accuracy
over another. In the context of group discourse, translations are treated as
resources for comprehension and application, not choices to be ranked. In the
group’s reading of Proverbs 29:5, this shared understanding of what constitutes
‘the Bible’ helps allow the disagreements about meaning to linger, and resolution
to be avoided.

The third and final example occurred the following week. Al, a lifelong

LCMS member, introduced the ambiguity by questioning the meaning of

Culture and Religion

13

Downloaded By: [Bielo, James S.] At: 16:12 28 March 2008

Proverbs 31:6 – 7: Give beer to those who are perishing, wine to those who are in
anguish; let them drink and forget their poverty and remember their misery
no more:

Example 3

1 Dave: What do you think about that?
2 Joe:

I think it ties back in to New Orleans, all the looting and stuff.

3

Everybody’s carrying away milk and butter.

8

4 Dave: Should we have the Budweiser trucks running down there?
5

[laughter]

6 Dave: Here’s what I’ve looked at with this. Will I spend my days in
7

drunkenness when I have been made rich by the Kingdom of

8

God? I think the accent is on verse four: It’s not for kings,

9

O Lemuel— not for kings to drink wine, nor for rulers to crave beer.

10

I think it’s a statement about, if you’ve got important stuff you

11

need to keep your wits about you. Let people that don’t have

12

important stuff, let them get hammered all day. But, not if you’re

13

going to be a king. You need your wits about you. And, so, to

14

think about our own lives as people of God. We are not the poor.

15

We are not the impoverished. And, it’s good for us to keep our

16

wits about us.

17 Eric: I think it is tongue-in-cheek. It’s almost backwards. It doesn’t
18

really mean what it says. It means just the opposite. It’s not good

19

to be drunk. So, the fools that are drunk probably are poor.

20

Those that are bitter at heart probably got that way because

21

they’ve been drinking too much wine.

22 Dave: Is this saying that the drinking leads to that then finally?
23 Steve: Well, I read it pretty directly. It says, give beer to those who
24

are perishing.

25

Joe:

We’re all gonna die eventually. So, eat, drink and be merry.

26 Dave: What do you all make of this? Is this prescriptive? Are we
27

supposed to go out and encourage poor people to get hammered?

28

Nate:

Well, isn’t four like what we talked about earlier [in the study]?

29

All the stuff that was talking about riches not necessarily being

30

millions of dollars, but more than conquerors through the Gospel

31

type of thing? How come it changes when it talks about alcohol?

32

Art:

Well, it says give beer to those who are perishing. Does that

33

mean dying?

34

Al:

Or, does that mean going to hell?

35

Art:

Right. Which one does it mean?

36

Dave:

Is it just an early form of hospice?

37

Art:

Right. Is it like a drug so you don’t have to suffer? You won’t

38

realize the pain you have or the suffering you’re going through,

J.S. Bielo

14

Downloaded By: [Bielo, James S.] At: 16:12 28 March 2008

39

because it will keep you in a comatose state. They didn’t have

40

morphine back then, but they had beer and wine.

41 Steve: So, it’s medicinal?
42 Eric: Just because of what it says just prior to that, like you mentioned,
43

here, in positions of authority that don’t drink, keep a clear head.

44

Then, what follows is kind of satire.

45 Art:

Or, is there a danger saying it’s satirical and really not take its true

46

meaning? Then, other people who go to other passages of the

47

Bible and say the same thing. So, now we’re picking it apart.

48

You’ll interpret it the way you want and I’ll interpret it the way

49

I want to fit my needs and my beliefs. There’s a danger there.

50 Dave: We make a statement, I think I talked a little bit about this,
51

understanding the Bible literally and understanding the Bible

52

literalistically. We want to understand the Bible literally, which

53

means we take the pieces and parts as they’re intended to be. That,

54

an historical passage we understand as history. A poetical thing

55

we understand as poetry. A figure of speech we understand to be a

56

figure of speech. A, what’s that called? A hyperbole. We say

57

‘I could eat a thousand horses’. Well, we aren’t asking for a

58

thousand horses. And, the trick is, though, to figure out what kind

59

of literature is this? Is this a satirical statement? Is there a poetical

60

statement? Is this a command? Literalistically would be to take

61

everything and just say, ‘Oh, yeah. Let’s get a Budweiser truck

62

and go start passing it out’. But, what we might do is come in to a

63

question about: well, what kind of literature is this?

The LCMS men raise four possibilities of meaning through the course of their
discussion. Dave is the first to assert a defined interpretation in lines 6 – 16, where
he argues that the text should be read as advice for ‘the people of God’. Eric does
not so much disagree in lines 17 – 21 as he does introduce a new possibility by
classifying the text as one of ‘satire.’ In lines 23 – 24, Steve succinctly suggests a
more ‘direct’, some might say ‘literal’, interpretation. And, finally, beginning in
line 32, Art problematizes the meaning of perishing, a question several of the
men pursue in the subsequent lines. Here, again, textual meaning remains
undecided. But, as with the previous two examples, what is most important about
this interaction is not its conclusion but its content.

The discussion in lines 32 – 41 regarding the meaning of perishing points to a

deeply rooted presupposition in Protestant Bible reading, and more broadly
Protestant language ideology. Many conservative Protestants identify themselves
as ‘literalist’, as Dave does in his closing statement. More than constituting an
actual hermeneutic method, ‘literalism’ is significant because it is fundamental to
conservative Protestant ideas about the nature of language. Vincent Crapanzano
(2000), Simon Coleman (2006b) and Webb Keane (2007) have all argued that a
characteristic feature of literalism is its prioritization of individual words and

Culture and Religion

15

Downloaded By: [Bielo, James S.] At: 16:12 28 March 2008

their referential meaning over lengthier discourse segments and other meaning
functions, generating consequences for interpretive practice, sermonizing, and
translation. In the case of Bible reading, this heightened emphasis on the discrete
lexeme is manifest in a concern with ferreting out different possibilities for
individual word meaning. Thus, by problematizing perishing (as they do
flattering in Example 2), the LCMS men are enacting a central feature of
conservative Protestant language ideology. What is most revealing about this
interaction is not what meaning they ultimately favour, but the fact that they are
drawn into the question of word meaning in the first place. To dwell on specific
words, it seems, is a very Protestant thing to do.

Dave’s closing statement makes clear that ‘literalism’ is not solely an

academic matter. It is also a meaningful category amongst conservative
Protestants. Dave’s distinction between being ‘literal’ and ‘literalistic’, however,
introduces a corrective to the anthropological understanding of literalism as
linguistic ideology. Although ‘literalism’ clearly entails an emphasis on
individual words—as evidenced by Art’s question—this is not the entire story of
Evangelical Bible reading. Dave illustrates that conservative Protestants combine
a focus on word meaning with an interest in identifying the proper genre. It is not
enough to consider the meaning of perishing without also considering ‘what kind
of literature this is’. Dave’s words are strikingly similar to those of a Baptist
preacher quoted at length by Brian Malley (2004, 98 – 99), suggesting that this
facet of Evangelical Biblicism is widespread and transmitted through a shared
institutional network. Moreover, as Malley argues, ‘literalism’ has much more to
do with asserting one’s identity as a conservative Protestant than it does a
systematic set of hermeneutic principles (2004, 120 – 123). A thinly veiled
sentiment in Dave’s remarks is that being ‘literalistic’ is exactly what they want
to avoid. This label belongs to those who are not wise and knowledgeable enough
to distinguish between different types of Biblical texts, resulting in bizarre and
dangerous interpretations. As ‘proper’ Bible readers (read: proper Lutherans),
‘literalist’ is what they want to strive for. Identity categories of Self and Other are
again at the centre of the group’s discourse, this time embedded in Dave’s
distinction between interpretive styles.

Through my analyses of these three interactions, I have argued that even

though the LCMS men fail to resolve textual meaning, they succeed in
communicating a variety of cultural concerns. Table 1 summarizes the types of
presuppositions conveyed in their search for meaning:

In addition to these forms of knowledge produced through individual

discussions, I conclude this analysis by identifying two further assumptions
encoded in the process of leaving textual meaning unresolved.

Evangelical Biblicism rests on a series of presuppositions about the nature of

the text, two of which I have already identified: authority and textuality. As
crucial as these ideas are, they are somewhat less prevalent in the anthropological
record than assumptions about the Bible’s relevance to the everyday lives of its
readers. After all, much of Evangelical Bible reading pursues questions of

J.S. Bielo

16

Downloaded By: [Bielo, James S.] At: 16:12 28 March 2008

personal application, not questions of textual meaning (Malley 2004). This
‘search for relevance’ (2004, 74) assumes the form of a guarantee, where there is
the distinct certainty that the Bible will always be appropriate, relevant, and
applicable to the readers’ own circumstances. Scripture is precise in its
application. The relevance to be found is not vague, but specific; not general, but
amazingly accurate in how it aligns with the individual and social experiences of
readers. This presupposition of relevance cultivates an expectation that no two
instances of Bible reading will ever be exactly the same. The reader is assured of
coming away with something new to consider or apply, something not present in
previous readings. The failure to resolve textual meanings encourages this
promise of new relevance. The lingering of several possibilities reminds readers
that the Bible is a book that always causes multiple perspectives to emerge. In this
way, group interactions that raise different interpretations of the same text mimic
individual Bible reading. Just as the Bible ‘speaks’ in new ways depending on
one’s life situation and circumstances, it ‘speaks’ differently to different
participants. The resulting polysemy is a ‘natural’ outcome of multiple readers
approaching the same text, rather than a challenge to the Bible’s stability.

The failure to resolve meaning also indexes a central characteristic of small-

group Bible study as an established institution among American Protestants. The
penultimate goal of small groups is, simply put, for its members to have a positive
spiritual experience. A variety of terms is used to capture this sentiment,
including ‘being fed’ and ‘growing in relationship with God’. The term I
encountered most frequently, however, was ‘edification’. Facilitators and
participants alike spoke of joining and attending small groups because they
wanted to be ‘edified’. They come to support each other, learn from each other,
and share in a mutual maturation of faith. Equally important is what this
expectation removes from the purview of desirable group life. Certain dynamics
are avoided at all cost; namely, ongoing tensions and hostile debates. Keeping
small groups ‘edifying’ relies on the absence of these negative interactions.
(Peter’s participation in the LCMS men is a prime example. Peter was clearly at
odds with the group, and his contributions were beginning to be disruptive.
Despite his obvious appreciation for them, he removed himself on his own accord
for the sake of both his and the group’s spiritual growth. And his departure was
never a topic of discussion. There were no consultations—public or private—
about convincing Peter to return because the men knew that his leaving was best

Table 1.

Presuppositions in the search for meaning.

Text

Presuppositions

Proverbs 22:6

Biblical authority; LCMS identity; Biblical textuality; Lutheran

social memory

Proverbs 29:5

Biblical authority; Language ideology of authorial intention;

‘Bible’ as category

Proverbs 31:6 – 7

Language ideology of literalism; LCMS identity

Culture and Religion

17

Downloaded By: [Bielo, James S.] At: 16:12 28 March 2008

for everyone involved.) This interactional norm of edification is buttressed by the
interpretive discourse of the group. Were individuals to argue their
interpretations to the bitter end, the result would be heated and continual
disagreement. The potential for conflict is thereby muted via the group’s
approach to Bible reading. Allowing multiple possibilities of meaning to linger
keeps the group dynamic from being too contentious, and the small group
experience of ‘edification’ from being threatened.

Conclusion

In this article I have contributed to the analytical problem outlined in the edited
volume The limits of meaning. The essays in this edited volume address the
important question of what happens when ‘meaning’ fails, when the actions and
events within Christian communities do not have the consequences (collectively
and individually) they are expected or intended to have. Absent from this
provocative collection is an account of Bible reading, of what happens between
Christian believers and their sacred text in the course of social practice. My
analysis of the LCMS men is directed towards this absence.

A common-sense assumption, and a (mostly tacit) assertion in the previous

anthropological work on Christian Bible reading, is that believers typically arrive at
some consensus regarding the meaning of particular texts. And, according to the
works reviewed at the opening of this article, such settled meanings are primarily a
matter of personal application and relevance. My ethnographic experience with the
LCMS men questions this received wisdom about Christian Bible reading.
Throughout this group’s 12 meetings in the study of Proverbs, the most common
outcome when discussing particular texts was a lack of definitive textual meaning.
The men articulated multiple, often conflicting, interpretations of the same Biblical
text and then moved on to new topics without clearing up obvious uncertainties.

This empirical situation forces us to reconsider the practice of Bible reading in

Christian communities. For the LCMS men the goal of group Bible study is not so
much to settle on defined meanings, but to actively consider and debate meaning. To
paraphrase Engelke and Tomlinson (2006, 2), meaning appears as a process not a
product. Bible reading, ultimately, is about encoding cultural concerns, and Bible
study is a site for making these concerns public. Searching for meaning, then, is
central to the work of reproducing and re-evaluating presuppositions embedded in
the act of reading ‘God’s Word’. Interpretive discourse is very much a discourse that
communicates knowledge of scripture, identity, and small groups as an institution.
This argument—that meaning is located in conversation’s course more than its
conclusion—is an established one among anthropologists interested in discourse and
inter-subjective behaviour. It is through talk that culture emerges; through
interaction that categories of meaning are articulated, re-affirmed, and contested
(Sherzer 1987).

In presenting the LCMS men I am arguing that Bible reading should be a

subject of comparative research regarding meaning-in-action. In addition to the

J.S. Bielo

18

Downloaded By: [Bielo, James S.] At: 16:12 28 March 2008

claims I have outlined, however, it is also necessary to point out some questions
that arise from this group’s interactions. I raise two issues here that emerge from
the details of this case study. First, Dave’s role as facilitator (and his dual role as
church pastor) provokes considerations of unequal authority and power in group
encounters. Do the words of certain speakers carry more weight than others’ for
addressing interpretive concerns? How do we identify such speakers, and how do
we measure such authority? And, what impact do these individuals have on the
unfolding of Bible reading, as both product and process? Second, for the LCMS
men, the meanings that emerge in the midst of conversation assume the form of
reproducing and re-affirming cultural concerns. In other cases, perhaps where the
participants are more divergent or the institution more accepting of conflict, are
there more possibilities for contesting established presuppositions? Could Bible
reading be a site for subversion, a site for challenging power structures and
resisting dominant cultural ideas? In such cases, is the search for meaning still
most meaningful, or do definitive conclusions become more likely and more
desirable?

The call for comparative empirical studies of Bible reading is perhaps most

relevant to the anthropology of Christianity. The centrality of the Bible in
Christian discourse and praxis, as well as its importance for encoding other
cultural concerns—for example, questions of ‘meaning’—make it an attractive
arena for theoretical development. At present, however, there is little in the way
of comparative analytical frameworks for situating research on how Christians
interact with their sacred text. Research on Biblicism (Malley 2004), semiotic
ideology (Engelke 2007; Keane 2007), and religious commitment (Keller 2005)
offer some promising avenues that have recently emerged. I add to
these productive lines of inquiry the question of how ‘meaning’ figures in
practices of Bible reading. More specifically, I have argued that the cultural work
embedded in the search for meaning is likely to be more significant than what
(if any) conclusions are established about textual meaning. In short, reading
‘God’s Word’ can accomplish a great deal in Christian institutions, even in the
absence of consensus or resolution.

Notes

1. These 12 meetings were audio-recorded and supplemented by field notes taken during

each meeting by the author. Each tape recording was transcribed verbatim with
accompanying interactional cues (e.g. pauses, laughs, paralinguistic features).

2. I say ‘explicitly’ here because several essays do involve the role and discussion of

Biblical texts in their analysis. However, none place the act of Bible reading and
interpretation at the centre of their analytical concerns.

3. Throughout this article I am careful to distinguish the types of Evangelical practice I

am describing as connected to the larger social field of ‘conservative’ Evangelicalism.
The care I exhibit is meant to (at least implicitly) recognize the diversity within
Evangelical Christianity, and the viable existence of more ‘moderate’ and
‘progressive’ versions of Evangelicalism. In particular, one might point to

Culture and Religion

19

Downloaded By: [Bielo, James S.] At: 16:12 28 March 2008

‘Progressive Evangelicalism’ (a´ la Jim Wallis, Tony Campolo, and others) and ‘the
Emerging Church’ (a´ la Brian McLaren, Doug Pagitt, Tony Jones, and others).

4. All Bible citations in this article are from the New International Version.
5. Do not be wise in your own eyes; fear the Lord and shun evil. This will bring you

health to your body and nourishment to your bones. Honour the Lord with your
wealth, with the firstfruits of all your crops; then your barns will be filled to
overflowing, and your vats will brim with new wine.

6. The interpretive dilemma of reading the Bible as ‘promise’ is deeply embedded within

Protestantism’s semiotic ideology of sincerity (see Keane 2007). The conflict between
Peter and the LCMS men in regard to this interpretive style may index a fissure within
conservative Evangelicalism surrounding this particular semiotic assumption. For an
extended discussion of this phenomenon, see Bielo (n.d.).

7. Based on the Today’s New International Version translation, The story replaces the

traditional book-chapter-verse organization of the Bible with a novel-based chapter
structure. The back cover reads as follows: ‘At its most basic level, Christianity is a
story about God and the remarkable lengths he goes to in order to rescue lost and hurting
people. The story gives you just that—the story of Scripture. Condensed into thirty
accessible chapters, it reads more like a novel than your typical religious text. And like
any good story, The story is filled with intrigue, drama, conflict, romance, and
redemption’.

8. Joe’s comment is in reference to the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina on the Gulf Coast

of the United States in early fall 2005.

References

Ammerman, Nancy T. 1997. Congregation and community. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University

Press.

Bielo, James S. 2004. Walking in the spirit of blood: Moral identity among born-again Christians.

Ethnology Summer, no. 3: 271 – 89.

———. 2007a. Recontextualizing the Bible in small group discourse. In SALSA XIV: Texas

linguistics forum, ed. Taryne Hallett, Simeon Floyd, Sae Oshima, and Aaron Shield. Vol. 50: 1 –
9. Austin: Texas Linguistic Forum.

———. 2007b. The mind of Christ: Financial success, born-again personhood, and the anthropology

of Christianity. Ethnos 72, no. 3: 315 – 38.

———. n.d. How much of this is promise?: God as sincere speaker in Evangelical Bible reading.

Unpublished manuscript. Michigan State University, East Lansing.

Bourdieu, Pierre. 1977. Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cannell, Fenella, ed. 2006. The anthropology of Christianity. Durham and London: Duke University

Press.

Coleman, Simon. 2006a. Materializing the self: Words and gifts in the construction of charismatic

Protestant identity. In The anthropology of Christianity, ed. Fenella Cannell, 163 – 84. Durham:
Duke University Press.

———. 2006b. When silence isn’t golden: Charismatic speech and the limits of literalism. In The

limits of meaning: Case studies in the anthropology of Christianity, eds. Matthew Engelke and
Matt Tomlinson, 39 – 62. New York: Berghahn Books.

Crapanzano, Vincent. 2000. Serving the word: Literalism in America from the pulpit to the bench.

New York: New Press.

Davie, Jody Shapiro. 1995. Women in the presence: Constructing community and seeking Spirituality

in Mainline Protestantism. Philadelphia: University Of Pennsylvania Press.

Eiesland, Nancy L. 2000. A particular place: Urban restructuring and religious ecology in a southern

exurb. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Engelke, Matthew. 2007. A problem of presence: Beyond scripture in an African church. Berkeley:

University of California Press.

Engelke, Matthew and Matt Tomlinson, eds. 2006. The limits of meaning: Case studies in the

anthropology of Christianity. New York and Oxford: Bergahn Books.

J.S. Bielo

20

Downloaded By: [Bielo, James S.] At: 16:12 28 March 2008

Hagen, Kenneth, Daniel J. Harrington, Grant R. Osbourne, and J. A. Burgess. 1985. The Bible in the

churches: How different Christians interpret the scriptures. New York: Paulist Press.

Harding, Susan. 2000. The book of Jerry Falwell: Fundamentalist language and politics. Princeton:

Princeton University Press.

Jones, Dale E. 2002. Religious congregations and membership in the United States 2000: An

enumeration by region, state, and county based on data reported for 149 religious bodies.
Nashville: Glenmary Research Center.

Keane, Webb. 2007. Christian moderns: Freedom and fetish in the mission encounter. Berkeley:

University of California Press.

Keller, Eva. 2005. The road to clarity: Seventh-day Adventism in Madagascar. New York: Palgrave

Macmillan.

———. 2006. Scripture study as normal science: Seventh-day Adventist practice on the east coast of

Madagascar. In The anthropology of Christianity, ed. Fenella Cannell. Durham: Duke University
Press.

Levering, Miriam, ed. 1989. Rethinking scripture: Essays from a comparative perspective. Albany:

SUNY Press.

Malley, Brian. 2004. How the Bible works: An anthropological study of Evangelical biblicism. Walnut

Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

Noll, Mark A. 1992. A history of Christianity in the United States and Canada. Grand Rapids: William

B. Eerdmans.

Robbins, Joel. 2001. ‘God is nothing but talk’: Modernity, language, and prayer in a Papua New

Guinea Society. American Anthropologist 103, no. 4: 901 – 12.

———. 2003. What is a Christian? Notes toward an anthropology of Christianity. Religion 33, no. 3:

191 – 9.

———. 2007. Continuity thinking and the problem of Christian culture. Current Anthropology 48, no.

1: 5 – 38.

Roberts, Fredric M. 2005. Be not afraid: Building your church on faith and knowledge. Herndon, VA:

Alban Institute Press.

Scott, Michael W. 2005. ‘I was like Abraham’: Notes on the anthropology of Christianity from

Solomon Islands. Ethnos 70, no. 1: 101 – 25.

Sherzer, Joel. 1987. A discourse-centered approach to language and culture. American Anthropologist

89, no. 2: 295 – 307.

Shoaps, Robin A. 2002. ‘Pray earnestly’: The textual construction of personal involvement in

Pentecostal prayer and song. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 12, no. 1: 34 – 71.

Smith, William Cantwell. 1993. What is scripture? A comparative approach. Minneapolis: Fortress

Press.

Theusen, Peter J. 1999. In discordance with the scriptures: American Protestant battles over

translating the Bible. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wuthnow, Robert. 1988. The restructuring of American religion. Princeton: Princeton University

Press.

———. 1994. Sharing the journey: Support groups and America’s new quest for community. New

York: Free Press.

Culture and Religion

21