Inerrancy or Interpretation? - How Evangelicals Err by Conflation
At the end of this semester I’ll have some more “Semester Highlights.”
I have two Greek classes and a systematic theology class I am in right now and
they’re shaping up to be pretty exciting, if intense. Until then, maybe I can
share a few ‘What’s on my mind’ posts. This is that.
Evangelicals are allowing dictionary definitions of
theological terms run away from their historical and theological definitions. I
think this is evident in several areas, but for now I only want to focus on the
doctrine of inerrancy.[1]
The most conservative of Evangelicals have begun to conflate an important
doctrine, that is, inerrancy, with the hermeutical method they subscribe to—whether
they are fully aware of it or not. This does damage within our churches because:
1) It is not orthodox; 2) It gives us a phrase which we too-willingly weaponize
and direct toward people with whom we disagree: ‘You deny the inerrancy of
Scripture! That’s heresy!’ There is so much division right now, I’d prefer if
we could make a little peace—in the church of all places.
If I had to guess why this is happening, I’d suggest it is
because this group of Evangelicals feels threatened by the culture around them,
so they retreat into places of black and white and hard lines. And if I had to go
one step further, I’d suggest it is because pundits have become our theologians,
and pundits are horrendous theologians.
What follows is not a full defense or explanation of
inerrancy, but rather a definition and clarification based on the current cultural
context. For a complete treatment of the topic, I recommend Millard Erickson’s
chapter on inerrancy in Christian
Theology. Any theological dictionary will also have an article along with
any systematic theology book. There are many foundational components that I am
not attempting to explain here.
What is Inerrancy?
Let’s go back to the
basics. There has never been a monolithic adherence to a specific standard
definition of inerrancy. Does that surprise you? While theologians as far back
as Augustine articulated how dependable the Scriptures are, it was not until
the Reformation that we acquired the vocabulary and more specific statements.
Inerrancy, as a
word, indicates a spectrum on which people fall at different ends. It is a very
narrow spectrum, however, making it even more bizarre that someone at one end
can claim the person on the other denies inerrancy; they are both on the far
end of conservative theology. This is why we need to return to the theological—not
English dictionary—definition of inerrancy, so that we can flush out what does
not belong in doctrine, but in the hermeneutical method.
Defining Inerrancy
Millard Erickson
offers a helpful overview of the points on the spectrum of inerrancy. Here are
the three most common views:
1.
“Absolute inerrancy holds that the Bible, which
includes rather detailed treatment of matters both scientific and historical,
is fully true.”[2] Therefore,
numbers (of people, for example) and the lengths (of the tabernacle, for
example) must be exact.[3]
2.
“Full inerrancy” is equivalent with the above
concerning the accurateness of what is “religious/theological/spiritual,” but
deviates on matters of science and history because it “regards these references
as phenomenal; that is, they are reported the way they appear to the human eye.
They are not necessarily exact; rather, they are popular descriptions, often
involving general references or approximations. Yet they are correct.”[4]
3.
“Limited inerrancy,” again, like the above,
regard everything the Bible teaches about theological and spiritual things as
fully trustworthy and inerrant. Unlike the above, “The Bible’s scientific and
historical references reflect the understanding current at the time it was
written. The Bible writers were subject to the limitations of their time.”[5]
Inerrancy and
Interpretation
This is what I want to make clear: Literal six-day
creationists and progressive
creationists can both belong to
definition 1. Someone who does not take the first chapter of Genesis
literally does not deny inerrancy,
not even at the furthest point on the spectrum. The person who argues for a
literal six 24-hour day creation is likely an inerrantist, but what they
articulate is actually a specific method of literal interpretation. To say it
another way, it is not their belief in inerrancy that necessitates literal
six-day creation, but rather their hermeneutical
method.
It is important to keep in mind that inerrancy belongs to
the author. In this case there is a dual authorship: human and Holy Spirit. If
these authors intended Genesis 1 to be taken as a poem, complete with vivid
imagery and metaphor, then inerrancy has not been violated when this interpretation
is applied. Indeed, if this is true, then neither the Holy Spirit nor Moses
(the traditional author of Genesis) intended to make a scientific statement
either way. Both people committed to inerrancy need to be concerned about the
author’s intended meaning—different hermeneutical methods will draw different
conclusions.
The Bible is filled with different genres of literature (poetry,
narrative, sermons, letters), each one needs to be interpreted with respect to
its genre and context.
My hope is that we Christians could show more grace to each
other, especially when we are so firmly in the same little corner of a
theological camp. What I hear and see, however, are Evangelicals who are too excited
to label others as “liberals” because they do not share the same interpretive
method—even if both believe in an inerrant Bible.
Appendix
Another thing that seems to be lacking in many Evangelicals' treatment of Scripture is the knowledge that the doctrines of inspiration and
inerrancy only apply to the autographs—the actual stuff on which the biblical
authors wrote. These doctrines have never applied to the copies of the original
manuscripts. Evangelical textual critics feel very confident that we have 99%
or better of the original, but it is not 100%, therefore, some humility would
do all of us a lot of good.
[1]
For another example, consider how we let God’s “omni” attributes become
swallowed up by the etymology of the word. Omnipotence, most of us say, means
all-powerful. When forced to define this we erroneously say this means God can
do anything. No, there are many
things God cannot do. Not the least of which is ceasing to exist.
[2] Millard
J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 3rd ed. 191.
[3]
Erickson offers an example that will force anyone to say exactly what they mean
when they say that Scripture is perfectly accurate on every kind of matter. He
points to 2 Chronicles 4:2, “…It measured 15 feet from rim to rim, was circular
in shape, and stood seven and one-half feet high. Its circumference was 45 feet”
(NET). If you require absolute accuracy, this example forces the reader to make
at least one component more vague and open to interpretation. Anyone can perform the math here—but this “discrepancy”
should threaten no one. It is a reasonable statement by all accounts and so
when we construct a doctrine, it ought not to be so rigid as to disallow one
from saying, “Surely not 45 fee exactly.”