Against a Co-opted Inerrancy
The following was inspired, in part, by this post by the Internet Monk. I don’t necessarily agree with everything the iMonk wrote, but I do find myself resonating with much of it. His post brought more flamethrowers his way than any other he’s written. Well, here’s my take on it…let’s see how flame retardent Sacred Journey is!
Having grown up in Evangelicaldom, one of the “sacred cows” I was
never to question was the doctrine of the inerrancy of the Scriptures.
Indeed, it never occurred to me to question it. I have always had (and
continue to have) a high view of the Bible. I believed (and believe)
it to be the Word of God, not just containing the Word of God,
but the very Word of God to us. From that view, an inerrantist view
seemed to be a logical conclusion. By inerrantist, I mean (or to be
honest, meant) a view that every detail given in the Bible is exactly
correct, even when modern science/historiography/archaeology seem to
contradict it. God said it, I believe it , that settles it.
My problem only came when I actually began reading the Bible and
studying it seriously.
I could give many examples of where my traditional view of inerrancy
(every statement of fact in the Bible is a completely true fact in all
that we mean by that in the modern West) hit upon a rocky coast, but
I’ll share one here that is among the more overlooked. (By the way,
when I call that view of inerrancy “traditional,” I am referring to a
tradition that is only a little over 100 years old. It is tough to
find any appeals to inerrancy in the way modern evangelicals mean it
that go back much before then.)
Here’s my example: The author of Samuel quotes Nathan the pophet
as saying to David that David’s kingdom would last forever, but the author
of Chronicles tells us that Nathan said, in the exact same speech, that
God’s kingdom would last forever. An inerrantist or literalist is
stuck with a dilemma here. Both seem to be “literal” reports of the
same conversation. They are not poetic in genre, just simple
historical narrative. But in each report, Nathan says something very
different. Both are in the Word of God. So, if you approach
from the literalist/inerrantist point of view, what did Nathan actually say?
Most readers of the Christian Bible would never see this, because
following the LXX we have Chronicles right after Samuel/Kings. We skip
over Chronicles because, well, we just read Samuel/Kings, right? But
in the Hebrew Bible, Chronicles was placed as the last book. It was
written much later than Samuel/Kings and for a different purpose…to
comfort and assure post-exilic Jews who now had no king, no temple (or
at least none in the neighborhood, if they were among the diasporized),
and no land of their own. Where they still God’s people? Chronicles has
Nathan assure them that they were, because even if there is no Davidic
king currently on the throne, God himself remains their king.
So who was “lying” about Nathan’s speech, the author or Samuel or the
author of Kings? A literalist/inerrantist approach would force me to
try to “resolve” this issue. In so doing, I would have to come up with
some rather convoluted explanation…perhaps Nathan said the same
sentence twice, with slightly different words each time? Such
explanations really satisfy no one.
I am no longer satisfied with how the word “inerrant” has been
co-opted in conservative evangelicalism. I believe that inerrancy
recognizes the human dimension of the Bible, and that this is exactly
how God wanted it to be. God gave us a Bible that, though divine in
origin, is inextricably tied up with the humans who penned it and the
cultures they lived in. If God wanted us to have an “inerrant” Bible in
the way that most evangelicals mean inerrant, we would have the original
manuscripts and they would’ve been carefully edited to remove all
metaphor, allegory, and pre-scientific boners currently included. But
instead, the same God who was willing to incarnate himself in human
flesh in Jesus Christ, was willing to “incarnate” his word in the
idioms and stories and imaginations of many men and women scattered
across some 1500 years of ancient Near Eastern cultures.
What’s interesting, though, is that as I read the Westminster
Confession of Faith, Section I, there is nothing there that would
contradict the position I’ve just outlined. And I still believe that
every word of the Bible is true…just in case you fainted
somewhere in the seventh paragraph.
Share on Facebook
February 21st, 2005 at 10:27 am
I have a problem lining up scriptures with modern science when science itself is constantly changing and refining.
I don’t really see the problem here. I think the Bible is innerant… and that God used different authors within their cultures. I don’t think there is an issue with the 2 different Nathan accounts… the story was reflected in two different ways - and both God-ordained. Why is this an issue with innerancy? What in this would make you question the accuracy of the Bible or what we usually understand “innerancy” to mean?
February 21st, 2005 at 10:38 am
Please understand I am not questioning neither the accuracy not the inerrancy of the Bible. I’m just saying that our modern way of defining “accuracy” or “inerrancy” do not match up with the way the ancients viewed the Bible. If we insist upon a modern definition of inerrancy (which is what many evangelicals insist upon), we have a problem with the passage I cited and many others as well.
The modern, post-Enlightenment sense of “inerrant” means “scientifically accurate factuality.” For example, saying that “Abraham Lincoln was not married to Mary Todd” would be considered inaccurate and in error. I’m saying that the ancients didn’t look at truth that way. To them, it could be true one time to say that Nathan said David would reign forever and another time to say that God would reign forever. Their concerns were different from ours.
So my plea is that evangelicals wake up and see that they are defending a position that is more Enlightenment-based than biblical, and doing so makes them appear unnecessarily ignorant and foolish.
February 21st, 2005 at 10:48 am
With regards to the science issue: I think we just tend to major on the minors in this area. A certain segment of Christendom finds themselves more focused on proving that science is wrong about some little detail that seems to disagree with the literal Biblical interpretation than on the good news of Jesus Christ.
Which will be a more effective witness, debating with the local science teacher that Noah’s flood really covered every bit of the whole earth, not just the heavily populated area around the Black Sea or loving him without feeling the need to defend the Bible? What motivates us in these debates? Love? Fear? Does God really need us to defend Him?
With regards to the particular example given about Nathan’s words, I would say this is an excellent example of the difference between understanding truth (which is perhaps a more eastern concept) and facts (which are perhaps a more western enlighntenment concept). Author Philip Gulley, (who I disagree with in some major ways, but that’s ok!), says about his stories that historians are chained to facts, while storytellers pay homage to truth. He says his stories may play with the facts, but they are all true!
I think this is the way I see some of the Bible. The OT in particular is primarily made up of stories pointing to God’s redemption of man through Christ. They are all true! Am I saying the facts may be more or less exact? I don’t think I’m interested in that question, because for me, truth is enough. I believe God is able to get through to us through His Word the good news of His salvation. He reveals what He chooses about Himself. So what if the facts don’t seem to line up? I still believe it is true!
February 21st, 2005 at 10:56 am
Inerrancy needs to be understood in a historical theological sense that the Church has more or less believed in. Though the word “inerrancy” is about 200 years old, the concept is not. The concept stated deductively is that if God, who is truthful, is able to communicated to us via inspiration (which he is) then such an inspired record is truthful. However, just because this deduction is valid and sound, it doesn’t tell us what the nature of such inerrancy implies, just like the fact that we know God has revealed himself doesn’t tell us what the content of that revelation is.
February 21st, 2005 at 11:00 am
I’m just curious here. What documents or sources are you looking at to point to how the “ancients” looked at truth? This is really interesting.
February 21st, 2005 at 4:50 pm
I won’t have time to read this until tomorrow, but I wanted to reserve a spot for my flame early. Striking a match…
February 21st, 2005 at 7:30 pm
Matt and Adam (Ochuk)…you stated what I’ve been trying to say so much more eloquently than I did.
Pat…it’s cold here right now, so your flame will be welcome
Phil…I can’t point to any one source document, but my general reading of history has convinced me that the “fact-based” definition of truth is a product largely of the western Enlightenment. That is not to say that ancient people didn’t care about facts, but simply that they recognized that truth is bigger than that which can be contained in mere logical propositions.
I’ve certainly see that in my reading of extra-biblical Jewish writings from just after the exile up through the NT times. It was very commonly accepted practice to retell stories, even biblical stories, in a way that applied to the contemporary situation. No one considered this lying.
February 21st, 2005 at 10:07 pm
Have you read any of John Frame’s stuff on inerrancy or Moises Silva? They both understand and express inerrancy the way it ought to be expressed. Michael’s a good guy but if he would read these guys he wouldn’t be writing the stuff he has been writing lately about inerrancy. Granted, most lay people don’t understand the sophisticated nuances of inerrancy as they have been expressed from the days of Warfiled and Hodge till today, and if you want to address misunderstandings that’s fine, but let’s not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
February 21st, 2005 at 10:20 pm
I will be reading Silva soon, and I would love to read Frame…but it’s not assigned so I don’t have time
I do agree now that iMonk went a little over the top. I think I’m really appealing for the historic view of inerrancy, as opposed to the word as hijacked by literalists. I hope I’ve saved that baby!
February 22nd, 2005 at 9:59 am
I don’t really know enough to do much more than strike a short match, but I’m just wondering … could the differences have something to do with typology?
February 22nd, 2005 at 3:17 pm
I guess my big wonderment about some of the hyper-literalists is this: have any of them ever written anything before? Have they ever told a story before? My gosh, I just wrote a little “song story” on my blog about a song I wrote six or seven (or eight) years ago (Build Up: Prepare the Way). Everything in that story is “true” - but my wife has since pointed out to me that my timeline might be seriously askew.
Note - this is a song that I wrote myself! My purpose in writing the little story wasn’t to get all the timeline right, but to capture the truth, the essence, of what was going on in my life and the life of our church at the time the song was written. It’s an absolutely true story in the respect that I intended it to be true, even though another witness might seriously contradict some details.
One thing to ask oneself is this: is the Holy Spirit anal-retentive, or is He an artist? Or, does He work with some anal-retentive human authors and some artistic human authors to bring about His truth?
Now I want to read those books that were recommended.
February 22nd, 2005 at 3:42 pm
One thing to ask oneself is this: is the Holy Spirit anal-retentive, or is He an artist? Or, does He work with some anal-retentive human authors and some artistic human authors to bring about His truth?
I like this statement/question a lot.
August 10th, 2005 at 8:19 am
I have read a lot of things concerning innerancy over the years (I profess to be one of those literalist guys, too.) and have spoken to many folks on both sides of that proverbial fence. One of the most intriguing faults of most arguments is the lack of pursued faith.
True, ‘innerancy’ as used in language has not been around for a very long time, but to attempt to invalidate the idea is inconclusive and most likely will not hold water. Having not spoken to guys like Isaiah, Hosea, Moses, etc. there is no doubt in my mind that they would agree with the fact that inspriation of Yahweh supercedes the mind of those He chose to pen Scripture. And, with Yahweh being the Divine Author of our HOly Texts I find it hard not to believe in the innerancy of Scripture.
Perhaps it would be easier to say that the Bible simply has no error without all of the rabbit chasing that goes on. All of this dialogue simply rests on faith. And that is much easier than participation in all of the so-called ’scholarly’ discussions that attempt to untie a knot that was never tied in the first place.