Retractions
Aaron summarized my previous post by identifying two main arguments against inerrancy. He may be making a fair analysis of what I have written, but I feel his restatement of my position significantly altars my argument. And so I would like to take a brief moment to respond to his assessment.
(1) Inerrancy precludes some accepted approaches to biblical interpretation in regard to some matters in Scripture.
This is not my problem with inerrancy. I think there are many “accepted approaches” to biblical interpretation that are entirely ridiculous and a waste of time. I do not think that because some people find an approach to scripture “helpful” then it is necessarily “useful”. My problem with inerrancy is that according to its definition the definition "when all the facts become known, they will demonstrate that the Bible in its original autographs and correctly interpreted is entirely true and never false in all it affirms, whether that relates to doctrine or ethics or to the social physical, or life sciences.", inerrancy becomes a position that precludes consideration of potentially truthful readings of scripture. If for example the position of Dr. Hays on the different last words of Jesus is actually correct then we should listen to it. We should not ignore it because it does not fit our definition of inerrancy. Now I realize you made an interesting caveat that you believe “thoughtful” inerrantists would not necessarily exclude Dr. Hays reading from the realm of inerrantist readings. Welcome to the moderate side! I would suggest that many of the professors at “Old Southern” were eventually dismissed for just such a use of the term inerrancy. If you follow the definition that I offered and again I am open to others, I think you are reinterpreting the word inerrancy to make such interpretations fit. More importantly I am concerned that it does not really help clear up the problem within the Convention. When people talk about inerrancy at the local church level they would not consider Dr. Hays reading of the gospels to be fitting of that term as your post-script not too subtly acknowledges. My problem is not that inerrancy precludes “some accepted approaches to Biblical interpretation.” My problem is that it potentially excludes truthful interpretations of scripture and forces people to allow untruthful readings of scripture to be substituted. This leads to the second observation that you make.
(2) Inerrancy actually deters people from the faith.
Inerrancy can actually deter people from the faith. I believe this statement true, but not for the reasons you seem to assume. It is not my concern that inerrancy is a buzz word offends people needlessly adding to the gospel. I think most people tend to have a rather simplistic approach to scripture that more often is compatible with the term inerrancy. I do not think this is necessarily a good thing. I think for many people inerrancy serves as a kind of moderately reassuring affirmation. But such a teaching can be serve to undermine faith by demanding that people misread the Bible. I think misreading the Bible can do people harm. As I am sure you would agree. I think this is why for example Bart Erhman’s understanding of the Bible was corrosively shaped by false readings of scripture that came from the teaching of inerrancy. Inerrancy may deter people from the faith because the term can be used to exclude truth.
I think you do bring us back to an important question is inerrancy right or wrong. By my previous writings in this post one might infer that I think it a great and dangerous doctrine. Let me back away from that a little. I like how you put it….inerrancy does not a hermeneutic make. My problem is not necessarily the idea of inerrancy. My problem is the next step that seems to be almost automatic….inerrancy must be right because of the testimony of scripture,
“The real issue is this: does the Bible's testimony to itself (which, keep in mind, includes Jesus' testimony to Scripture) lead us to conclude that the Bible is inerrant? I believe it does. That is the real issue.”
Where does the Bible assert the position of inerrancy as defined in the statement I offered? The Bible is a truthful witness to the acts of God in history. We need the Bible to come to saving knowledge of Jesus Christ our Lord. It is through the Bible we come to know the God of Israel who created the world and sent His Son to redeem the world. It is through the scripture that we come to know that it is God’s Spirit that leads us in our understanding of our need for salvation. What the Bible is not…The Bible should not be thought of as God’s thoughts on science, history, psychology, sociology, zoology…. I realize there are “thoughtful” inerrantists who have a careful reading of scripture. One that I might not agree with but is nevertheless serious about what is being affirmed and what is not being affirmed in a particular passage. However, I think the common usage of the term inerrancy is not useful and in fact in many cases actually harmful. I appreciate your interest in responding to my thoughts.
(1) Inerrancy precludes some accepted approaches to biblical interpretation in regard to some matters in Scripture.
This is not my problem with inerrancy. I think there are many “accepted approaches” to biblical interpretation that are entirely ridiculous and a waste of time. I do not think that because some people find an approach to scripture “helpful” then it is necessarily “useful”. My problem with inerrancy is that according to its definition the definition "when all the facts become known, they will demonstrate that the Bible in its original autographs and correctly interpreted is entirely true and never false in all it affirms, whether that relates to doctrine or ethics or to the social physical, or life sciences.", inerrancy becomes a position that precludes consideration of potentially truthful readings of scripture. If for example the position of Dr. Hays on the different last words of Jesus is actually correct then we should listen to it. We should not ignore it because it does not fit our definition of inerrancy. Now I realize you made an interesting caveat that you believe “thoughtful” inerrantists would not necessarily exclude Dr. Hays reading from the realm of inerrantist readings. Welcome to the moderate side! I would suggest that many of the professors at “Old Southern” were eventually dismissed for just such a use of the term inerrancy. If you follow the definition that I offered and again I am open to others, I think you are reinterpreting the word inerrancy to make such interpretations fit. More importantly I am concerned that it does not really help clear up the problem within the Convention. When people talk about inerrancy at the local church level they would not consider Dr. Hays reading of the gospels to be fitting of that term as your post-script not too subtly acknowledges. My problem is not that inerrancy precludes “some accepted approaches to Biblical interpretation.” My problem is that it potentially excludes truthful interpretations of scripture and forces people to allow untruthful readings of scripture to be substituted. This leads to the second observation that you make.
(2) Inerrancy actually deters people from the faith.
Inerrancy can actually deter people from the faith. I believe this statement true, but not for the reasons you seem to assume. It is not my concern that inerrancy is a buzz word offends people needlessly adding to the gospel. I think most people tend to have a rather simplistic approach to scripture that more often is compatible with the term inerrancy. I do not think this is necessarily a good thing. I think for many people inerrancy serves as a kind of moderately reassuring affirmation. But such a teaching can be serve to undermine faith by demanding that people misread the Bible. I think misreading the Bible can do people harm. As I am sure you would agree. I think this is why for example Bart Erhman’s understanding of the Bible was corrosively shaped by false readings of scripture that came from the teaching of inerrancy. Inerrancy may deter people from the faith because the term can be used to exclude truth.
I think you do bring us back to an important question is inerrancy right or wrong. By my previous writings in this post one might infer that I think it a great and dangerous doctrine. Let me back away from that a little. I like how you put it….inerrancy does not a hermeneutic make. My problem is not necessarily the idea of inerrancy. My problem is the next step that seems to be almost automatic….inerrancy must be right because of the testimony of scripture,
“The real issue is this: does the Bible's testimony to itself (which, keep in mind, includes Jesus' testimony to Scripture) lead us to conclude that the Bible is inerrant? I believe it does. That is the real issue.”
Where does the Bible assert the position of inerrancy as defined in the statement I offered? The Bible is a truthful witness to the acts of God in history. We need the Bible to come to saving knowledge of Jesus Christ our Lord. It is through the Bible we come to know the God of Israel who created the world and sent His Son to redeem the world. It is through the scripture that we come to know that it is God’s Spirit that leads us in our understanding of our need for salvation. What the Bible is not…The Bible should not be thought of as God’s thoughts on science, history, psychology, sociology, zoology…. I realize there are “thoughtful” inerrantists who have a careful reading of scripture. One that I might not agree with but is nevertheless serious about what is being affirmed and what is not being affirmed in a particular passage. However, I think the common usage of the term inerrancy is not useful and in fact in many cases actually harmful. I appreciate your interest in responding to my thoughts.
posted by Luke at
6:44 AM
4 Comments:
Hey Luke. I’ve been reading with interest the last several posts and responses to your blog. I agree with much of what you have said and hesitate to respond as I do not want to muddy the waters; however, I have decided to share a couple of thoughts anyway. Like you, I divided my seminary training between a conservative evangelical seminary and a mainline seminary. During my time at the former, it was mentioned that while the definition you gave is the oft-quoted casting of the meaning of “inerrancy,” there are other conceptions (each with its own nuances) that are held by people who use the word. On a side note, I have always found the traditional statement of inerrancy to be so nebulous as to be meaningless (“when the facts become known,” “original autographs,” “correctly interpreted,” gobbledygook). The following is a paraphrase of the section of Erickson’s systematic theology in which he discusses the various approaches to inerrancy:
1. Absolute Inerrancy: The Bible is fully true even in its scientific and historical claims. Scientific and historical facts are important to the biblical witness and any potential problem must, therefore, be accounted for.
2. Full Inerrancy: The Bible is completely true (at least, in the way it appears to the eye). As I understand it, this means that scientific and historical claims are “correct” even if they are not exact or precise.
3. Limited Inerrancy: The Bible is inerrant in salvific doctrinal references, but other issues may reflect the writers’ (limited) knowledge and education. This means that glaring errors in regard to science or history are irrelevant to discussions of inerrancy because the Bible is not a science or history textbook.
4. Inerrancy of Purpose: The Bible is inerrant in that it effectively accomplishes its purpose of bringing people into relationship with Christ. Its purpose is not to communicate facts, so factual misstatements are irrelevant to any discussion of inerrancy.
5. Accommodated Revelation: The writers’ shortcomings are revealed in all teaching, even theological doctrines.
Erickson includes two other categories (Non-propositional and Irrelevant) that are unimportant to this discussion.
As you know I consider myself an inerrantist who falls somewhere between #1 and #3 (not necessarily #2). In other words, I am convinced that Scripture is inerrant in regard to what it says about God and salvation but am not as sure about its take on historical and scientific claims. At the same time, I would have to say that that the onus is on those who seek to discredit Scriptural claims. My view of inerrancy would not be affected in the least if non-doctrinal biblical claims are proven to be incorrect. Of course, I am also not a Baptist, so I have no interest in your infighting ;o}
One other thing that must be noted is that many thinking inerrantists would hold that the genre of the text must be taken into account when considering the text’s inerrancy. For example, because the Chronicles are historical books, one would expect them to be inerrant in their historical claims. However, because Proverbs is wisdom literature, mistaken historical (or scientific) claims on the part of those authors would not detract from the inerrancy of the book because it never claims to be a historical (or scientific) document.
--genuflect
By
Anonymous, at 11:16 AM
Dear Genuflect,
I always enjoy your insights. Following the Erickson schema I would find 3 or 4 most compelling (though I am not sure I understand the difference). The problem for Baptists as I mentioned in my post it does not help the practical divisions (at least in my mind) though I would not trade our problems for your denomination's problems (I would add a smiley face here if I knew how).
I would enjoy your insight into another thought that I have been considering for sometime now. I have probably made some mention of it in our conversations before. I find great similarity between the actual approach (I use this term in a mushy sense...the feeling I get when in the presence of....) between inerrantists and Hauerwasians (sp?). It is interesting that it is common to think that the inerrantists are wedded to the enlightenment in complete opposition to the Hauerwasian...whatever. But inerrancy funtions in a similar way to frame any discussion. One must after all understand and share the language to understand what is going on...and what is more to rightly profess the faith. This makes me think that perhaps the inerrantists are more post-modern than they realize. What are your thoughts on this.
blessings,
Luke
By
Luke, at 8:13 PM
Hey Luke. As I understand it, the primary difference between numbers three and four in Erickson’s schema is as follows:
For those who hold to position three, the Bible must be without error in its claims regarding salvation. For those who hold to position four, the Bible might be mistaken about certain salvific doctrines so long as its errors are not so numerous or egregious as to render it ineffective in accomplishing its purpose of bringing people into relationship with God through Christ. The difference is subtle but distinct.
I find your second question fascinating. You may be on to something here, but I am not sure that I quite follow your line of thought. I do think that (whether they realize it or not) inerrantists do have their own argot and thus must define their terms in order to effectively communicate their message. But in some way, every group must do so. I have never really considered postmodernism as it relates to the role of language. To my mind, discussions about postmodernism in regard to faith typically revolve around the nature of truth. Is truth absolute, or more properly, is truth propositional? I think the Hauerwasian would say no, while the inerrantist would say yes. This is why the inerrantist is more concerned with facts than is the typical Hauerwasian. I think this focus on propositional truth is what ties inerrantists to the Enlightenment. The inerrantist is willing to explain what she means by certain terms and then assumes one can have a debate about issues. The Hauerwasian is not above debate, but must ultimately come to the conclusion that one can only come to understand the language experientially. If one isn’t formed by the Church through teaching and sacraments, one cannot fully understand. Therefore, there really isn’t much to debate. This is why a common criticism of Hauerwas is that he has an underdeveloped pneumatology (in that he conflates pneumatology with ecclesiology).
While I think Hauerwas sometimes overstates his case, I do think he presents a corrective to our illusion to objectivity. This is not to say that there is no such thing as objective truth. However, Hauerwas reminds us that ultimately everything we claim to believe and teach is interpretation. This is why there is such a close relationship between pneumatology and ecclesiology in his work. For Hauerwas, it seems to me, the Spirit works most effectively (if not solely) through the Church. We can each interpret the Bible as we see fit, but the most accurate interpretation comes through the teaching of the Church. That said, I’m unsure if Hauerwas is speaking of individual churches/denominations or of some monolithic entity (the Church universal).
After writing all of this, I have this haunting fear that I’ve simply reiterated what you already know and have missed your point completely.
much joy,
genuflect
By
Anonymous, at 6:48 AM
Genuflect,
Greetings, I appreciate your analysis of Hauerwas. I am once again reminded why I did not and do not find his instruction comprehensible. I realize that he could care less, but it seems full of contradictions, whats more it seems to make the church inerrant. Or at least the practices of the church. Or at least the practices of the church Hauerwas thinks are the practices of the church. This is where I find some similarity with the fundamentalists. It seems like the inerrancy of the Bible functions in the same way as the practices of the church for H. I may try to write a more full treatment of what I mean. I do recognize that there is not a one to one correspondence between the two. To me it seems that the use of "propositional truth" by the inerrantists is little different than the use of the "practices of the church" by H.
"You have to define your terms in order to communicate"...this I am in complete agreement with, but the fundamentalists go beyond this in my opinion. With the assertion that you have to have an inerrant Bible to be able to understand truth this is significantly different than agreeing on terms (except of course for the inerrantist lights who like to use the "nuance" the definition to something more comfortable).
Merry Christmas.
blessings,
luke
By
Anonymous, at 7:01 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home