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.
posted by Luke at
3:31 PM
4 Comments:
I have, personally, learned a lot from Dr. Hays. But the fact that Dr. Hays is not an inerrantist doesn't even begin to address this student's likely concerns about Duke.
I think Duke provides an excellent educational opportunity in its own context, but I personally would not go there for a Master of Divinity, especially not in training for pastoral ministry. An academic or research degree? Sure (except for the fact that Duke's Ph.D. program requires 5 years of study--too long for me). Still, there is much to be said for learning from those who don't share your own theological perspective. I did that--to a degree--in college, and then I came to a seminary that was more in line with my own beliefs. The challenge for me now (and in the coming years, since I will be staying here at Southern for a Ph.D.) will be to read and fairly evaluate perspectives that fall outside the conservative, Calvinistic, Baptist tradition. One of the drawbacks of always being around people who agree with you is that it becomes easy to caricature and misrepresent the views of others. I am going to try my best to avoid that.
And hey, of all people, Karl Barth has had a tremendous impact on my educational experience while I have been here! That is certainly an outside perspective.
By
Aaron, at 8:47 PM
Hello Luke. As you know, the first half of my seminary training was done at a conservative Evangelical school (Columbia International University) and the latter half was completed at a mainline school (Duke). I wouldn't have had it any other way: I appreciate the approaches and emphases at both schools and feel that I have a better appreciation for both "conservative" and "liberal" viewpoints. I was also able to observe how each side (intentionally and unintentionally) caricatured the other.
My problem with some higher critics is that they seem to begin (as do many atheists) from a posture of arrogance. The idea that something cannot possibly be true if they cannot understand it. My objection is not to the reasonableness or rationality of the Christian faith. My objection is to the fact that many of these people seem to view themselves as the litmus test for rationality.
To be fair, my objection to some inerrantists (like some of the students at CIU) is that they make inerrancy the litmus test of true Christian belief. Ironically, they fail to realize that by doing so they are caught up in bibliolatry.
I still call myself an inerrantist, although there are certain passages that give me pause. That said, my faith is not based on, nor does it rely on, the inerrancy of Scripture. Even if it is proven one day that there are indisputable contradictions in the biblical texts, I do not believe my faith in and commitment to Christ would be shaken in the least. As I've shared with you in the past, I believe that many critics of biblical coherency fail to acknowledge the many cogent attempts at explaining or harmonizing ostensibly contradictory (or otherwise problematic) texts (e.g., Mk 9:1; Mt. 21:7). Likewise, many inerrantists fail to admit that many attemps at harmonizing certain other problematic texts are not only less than compelling, they are downright inane (e.g., the genealogies in the gospels, the creation narratives).
Ultimately, as far as inerrancy goes, I consider myself a happy agnostic.
By
Anonymous, at 9:01 AM
Dear Neal and Aaron,
I appreciate your thoughtful responses. Neal, I think we are probably pretty similiar with respect to our thoughts on innerrancy....perhaps. I would be curious for you to "flesh out" (to use a grad school term) what you mean by "liberal".
Aaron, I think you are probably correct that this student's reasons for choosing a seminary go beyond his assesment of Dr. Hays. I would agree that for most Baptists it is probably a good thing to attend a denominational school. However, in my experience Duke is quite seriously committed to preparing students for ministry.
blessings,
Luke
By
Luke, at 8:37 PM
Neal,
By the way, have you listened to the Hays Erhman debate? Hays brings up several of the "historical tensions" in the gospel accounts. In the debate he highlighted several in the gospel of John. I am curious to hear what you think of the different placement of the cleansing of the Temple as an example. I checked out Andreas Kostenberger's commentary on John (he is a CIU alumni). He provided several options the one it seemed he found most compelling is that there were two such incidents.
blessings,
Luke
By
Luke, at 8:40 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home