The Question of Inerrancy

Last week, I attended the North Carolina State vs. University of North Carolina baseball game. It was a good game despite the Tar Heel's victory. I brought some of my vocabulary cards to the game. I am trying to be more disciplined in keeping up my language skills. In the seventh inning a young man behind me asked if my cards were Hebrew (which they happened to be). He said that he had tried to get into a Hebrew language class at State but the course was offered only sporadically, and he was not able to, but he planned on taking Hebrew in seminary. Rarely do I meet young people who are planning to go to seminary. I meet plenty of seminary students, but it was a pleasant surprise to meet someone before they have arrived in seminary. He said that he was planning on attending either Southeastern or Southern. We talked for a while. I encouraged him to visit Duke, although I did not discourage his attending either of SBTS or SEBTS. He mentioned that his only encounter with Duke was through a conference hosted by Southeastern. He said that he was concerned that the only professor he heard from Duke did not "hold" to innerancy. He was referring to Dr. Hays. I do not know how the question was posed to him but I can imagine Hays not providing an “acceptable” response to the typical litmus test question. This week I attended a "conversation" between Richard Hays and Barth Erhman. They discussed the historical reliability of the canonical gospel witness to Jesus. Erhman raised a number of thoughtful and probing questions. He describes himself as an agnostic and his questions were hostile to the tradition. While I do not necessarily follow Hays in all of his interpretations, I am still not entirely convinced by his interpretive schema (I especially find C.S. Lewis' questions of Higher Criticism to be naggingly unanswered). However, with this caveat, I found it interesting to listen to Hays rebuttle of Erhman. They basically agree on much of the "historical" Jesus. It is too bad that a student would think he had nothing to learn from studying with Dr. Hays. It is unfortunate that this student was put off from Hays because of the battle lines within the fundamentalist movement. I have heard a professor at SEBTS dismiss as dangerous any professor who does not hold to inerrancy. I do not find such assertions accurate nor helpful.

Seize the Day

Several years ago there was a popular bumper sticker and t-shirt slogan the man who dies with the most toys wins. Not long after this slogan came out there followed a number of responses. One memorable response was “the man who dies with the most toys still dies”. This sentiment would connect with the writer of Ecclesiastes. The reality and finality of death is behind much of the book. There is a time for everything under heaven but the righteous and unrighteous all share a common destiny. The teacher even admonishes the reader to enjoy your time with you wife your work for you are all headed to the grave where you will not enjoy anything else. Not only is death common to all but the way to death is not a straight line. It doesn’t seem fair that some die young. When I was first out of college there was a tragedy that occurred that still unnerves me. On the highway one of those large mowers was cutting grass and one of the blades struck a stone and broke off. The broken blade went off into the highway and struck a passing car killing one of the occupants. This tragic and bizarre accident is a reminder of how fragile life is.
We all have experienced in some way this reality. You may be familiar with the fable Meeting in Samara. A man has a terrible dream where it is revealed to him that he is going to meet death in the afternoon. He wakes up terrified and tells his friend the dream. He decides to leave town. He decides to go as far away as possible to Samara. Mid morning the friend goes to the market where he bumps into death. They strike up a conversation and death tells the man he has to be going he has an appointment in Samara. This view of death that it is just a part of a person’s fate is not the full Biblical witness. Ecclesiastes is not the full picture. It is an important reminder to us about the preciousness of life, but it is incomplete.
In the New Testament we find the clear teaching that the natural death that we all will inevitably experience is not the end. For it is appointed once for man to die and then after that to face judgment (Hebrews 9:27). The major issue the teacher wrestles with is the reality of death for both the good and the bad. In fact he says it is better to be a live dog than a dead lion. In the New Testament we learn that God the Son became a man he took on flesh and lived not to be served by people but rather to serve. He came to give his life as a ransom.
In the west there are many cities that at one time were frontier forts for example Fort Worth in Texas. These forts were places that settlers were able to go settle nearby and if there was trouble they had some security. The church is one of the forts of God. An outpost to proclaim the good news that death is not the final word. That God the Son came and died that those who believe in him may be raised to new life. We are an outpost of hope and refuge in a world that desperately needs help.

The Dead Letter

On Tuesdays I often go over to Southeastern to make use of the excellent library facilities. It is an attempt on my part to stay abreast...or to keep my fingers in critical scholarship. I am especially interested in the history of the church. I once had a professor describe his interest in church history, “I decided to spend my time in the great thoughts of others, rather than in my little thoughts.” I try to read broadly in all of the major disciplines. I find the least amount of interest in Biblical Studies. Please note I am not saying nor do I would to intimate that I find the Bible uninteresting. It is the current approach in Biblical studies that I think enervates theological discourse. I locate the problem in the tendency to approach the Holy Scripture as one would approach any other ancient document. I think this approach is shared both within “conservative” and “liberal” circles. Certainly within the traditions that affirm the inerrancy and authority of the scriptures there is deference to the contents of scripture, but the approach to reading the Bible is the same. Find out what the author meant and then one can extrapolate what that means for us today. This is not the way the Holy Scripture has been read by our predecessors in the faith. The authorship of the Bible has always been thought to be God (no doubt through human agents). One frequently finds that ancients refer to the Holy Oracles. God is still speaking through the scriptures. I do not know how our modern rut may be changed. But I feel that it is not simply in a turn to the conservatives. For the preacher the commentaries of previous generations written largely by ministers are often the most theologically provocative. I think there is a reason for this. I think it is because those expositors were reading a living Word not attending to a dead letter.