What the Bible Says or Reads? The Problem of Inerrancy

Conservative Evangelicalism has been caught up in a debate over the authority that goes back at least to the 19th century. It is a debate that intertwines everything from science (Evolution) to the role of women, from homosexuality to slavery. I long ago gave up inerrancy because it simply closes off discussion of how we should read scripture. Like many progressive evangelicals I tried to embrace infallibility, an idea that seemed to have less to do with the words and more to do with intent. Over the last decade or so I've come to find this too constricting.

James McGrath has written a helpful post on the idea of the unbiblical nature of the concept of inerrancy, which is worth reading. That post seems to be a response to other posts at other sites, but the point is: inerrancy isn't necessarily a biblical idea. Indeed, it is a very enlightenment idea. That said, we must still deal with Scripture and how it influences our lives. I know that I'm guilty of cherry-picking and I'm certainly not alone.

The debates over authority likely are wrong headed and don't get us anywhere. A better conversation may have to do with the way we read Scripture. In the documentary about homosexuality and the bible, For the Bible Tells Me So, retired Disciples pastor and sociologist Larry Keene makes the distinction between "what the Bible says" and "how the Bible reads." This distinction is, I believe, very helpful. When we say: "The Bible says . . ." there is an assumption that there is no debate as to its meaning. The meaning is clear and leaves no room for debate. To say "the Bible reads . . ." recognizes the need for interpretation and recognizes that the meaning may not be as "clear" as we may think. The latter also leaves room for conversation.

So, thanks to James for the conversation starter. It is important that we as Christians have this conversation, for most of the divisions within Christianity hinge on conflicting interpretations that we have hardened into apparently clear commands. And when it comes to issues like women and homosexuality those hardened interpretations have proven less than helpful.

Comments

Anonymous said…
I have long contended that "inerrancy" is either an unhelpful term describing a good approach to biblical authority (e.g., when used by the later Clark Pinnock or Bernard Ramm) or simply a heresy (as most conservative Christians use the term).
Anonymous said…
The notion of biblical inerrancy as it is currently understood by most evangelicals is indeed a heresy, the heresy of worshiping a graven image: to claim that the Bible is the perfect revelation of God in its every word is to bestow on the graven word immense honor and glory, if not to actually engage in the worship of the book (which is nothing more than a human representation of God) as if it were God.

The Bible was spoken written by humans, then written and translated
and ultimately read by other humans. The only way any quantum of truth could be conveyed through such a complex of human involvement is if such transmission was inspired, at each and every step along the way. And I believe that it was (and that occasionally when I read the text, my reading may be inspired).

However, no one would claim that I or any other contemporary translator or reader is so inspired as to speak or write nothing but truth, as regards our translation or interpretation of the Bible, how can anyone make such a claim about past writers, translators, and transmitters of the Biblical texts. We are all creatures and our efforts, no matter how inspired, are prone to error. It would be foolish to think anyone along the line of transmission from the beginning was so inspired as to be absolutely free from imperfection.

And then there is God's problem of communicating to primitive people information which is simply beyond their ability to comprehend; if you cannot comprehend something you cannot re-express it in your own language - there were no words to express notions of nuclear physics or prehistoric zoology or geology.

My belief is that God communicated what needed to be communicated in a language and with ideas which were comprehensible to to God's agents. Nuclear physics, prehistoric zoology and geology were unimportant to the message(s) contained in the Bible. Those ideas are accessible to humans through science, as humanity masters the tools of reason and inquiry which God has provided.

God's most personal self-disclosures, however, required more explicit self-revelation, and hence, the need for Scripture. The truth of God's self-revelation is what we should seek in Scripture; and we rightly invoke our hope and our faith that God's active inspiration has effectively preserved such truths through the generations of transmitters.

John
Anonymous said…
Inerrancy is only a problem to those, like Cornwall, who want the Bible to say what they want it to say instead of what it actually says. Inerrancy restricts their abity to "interpret" Scripture in such a way that it allows them to do as they please, and to hell with what God says.
Anonymous said…
Gary indicts people who he believes: "...want the Bible to say what they want it to say instead of what it actually says...."

The problem for Gary then is to discover what the Bible actually says. And, Gary not being able to lay his hands on the 'original' and not being able to translate it if he could, how then is he to discern what the Bible actually says?

We must all lean on someone or some institution which we trust to aid us in our interpretive efforts. There is great disagreement between persons and institutions who put forth what they claim to be reliable interpretations. So who has the correct interpretation and how are we believers to discern?

I think we choose the interpeter we will rely on. And I suspect most believers, like Gary and like Bob Cornwall, choose the interpretation which reflects values that they are comfortable with, that is the interpretation through which "the Bible [says] what they want it to say".

In the end what is important is what God says, not what someone says the Bible says. We can only hope they are in concert with each other.

John

I doubt Gary's interpretation or the interpretation of the person or institution

Popular Posts