Untangling Inerrancy from Scripture’s Authority
Our colleagues have bravely waded into troubled waters, where wave upon wave of discussions and disagreements swirl around these related topics of Scripture’s authority and inerrancy, and the particular challenges presented by the “modern study” of Scripture which evangelicals, for the most part, have mostly embraced in our own scientific approaches to “prove” the truthfulness of Scripture. After my hermeneutics professor in seminary railed against Bultmann, the remaining 14 weeks of the term were spent mastering the historical-grammatical method of interpreting the Bible. This systematic technique, quite scientific in its own approach, would guarantee a right interpretation of a passage, or so it was assumed. A test case for this method was our exegetical papers on Paul’s “difficult teachings” on women in ministry found in 1 Timothy 2:8-15. And not surprising, students didn’t come out at the same place in their understanding of this passage even though the same method was used by each one (and insisted upon for grading). In evangelical contexts, this means that “someone else’s” interpretation of the Bible was laden with presuppositions, and therefore, wrong. Thankfully, as Amos notes, we can (and must) affirm that a presuppositionless stance to the Scripture is impossible. I would suggest, as a person of faith, it is also undesirable.
Underlying these posts and responses are larger theological questions and issues that are interesting to me: What exactly is Scripture? What is Scripture’s purpose? What gives Scripture its authority?
I am sympathetic with the critiques of inerrancy represented in these posts. I agree with Karl Giberson: inerrancy seems to create more problems than it is worth defending given it doesn’t really solve much when it comes to Scripture’s authority, which is the primary commitment that most evangelicals hold when it comes to the Bible. In her post, Molly Worthen has given us important historical reminders about inerrancy as a recent idea in certain segments of American evangelicalism. Inerrancy is a limited discussion among the wings of evangelicalism that emerged out of the modernist/fundamentalist controversies, with a focus on the status of the Bible’s authority in areas beyond even what the Reformers suggested: Scripture is sufficient for salvation, Christian faith, practice, worship, devotion and piety. This affirmation was made without an appeal to inerrancy. Unfortunately today, more important questions on Scripture’s functional authority are subsumed under inerrancy as if inerrancy solves questions of authority. They are two different things. In my own Wesleyan context, Scripture’s authority never rested in a particular idea about the Bible but in the Scripture’s capacity to act as a means of grace connecting one with God, others, and with God’s purposes in the world. Scripture’s power and authority was in what it affects in the life of a believer. It is a functional authority, received by faith.
This is why I appreciate the questions which Christopher Hays raised in his post. His post gets at the more fundamental questions that are deeply theological about Scripture. I do not think we can talk about Scripture’s authority (or purpose) without talking about God which is what NT Wright does in his book, Scripture and the Authority of God (HarperCollins, 2011). I realize this is a “chicken and egg” kind of dilemma. What comes first? God? Scripture? Why not Jesus? I experience this each time I put together a syllabus for a basic theology course. How can I talk about a theology of Scripture without talking about all of the other frameworks typically used in a systematic theology course? Scripture cannot hang out there, as some kind of independent, self-justifying object apart from other theological claims we make. Scripture both forms our theological claims (a trickier task than we think as rightly noted by Christopher Hays) and is informed by how we understand God, the story of Israel, the Living Word Jesus, the Holy Spirit, the life and ministry of the Church, the purpose of Christian discipleship, the means of grace and growth, and our role as humans in God’s creative and redemptive purposes. Yes, these do shape what we understand Scripture to be and what we expect God to do in and through Scripture. Making Scripture itself an object of study, which the tools of modern historical research tend to do (but not always) may displace the subjects of Scripture, primarily God and a worshipping faith community whose lives are shaped and whose mission is propelled forward by the story found in Scripture.
I heard in these various reflections an appreciation for the tools of modern historical study, along with an acknowledgement of the ambivalence this has created for evangelicals whose beloved book is placed under a microscopic lens. This scrutiny, for some, creates fear that the very essence of faith will be eroded if the Bible is not what we thought it to be. Which takes me back to my questions: What exactly is Scripture? What is Scripture’s purpose? What gives Scripture its authority? And why are these questions important for evangelicals in spite of what we think we already know and believe about the Bible?
I love this: "I do not think we can talk about Scripture’s authority (or purpose) without talking about God…. I realize this is a “chicken and egg” kind of dilemma. What comes first? God? Scripture? Why not Jesus? … Scripture cannot hang out there, as some kind of independent, self-justifying object apart from other theological claims we make."
I think these comments are deeply valuable because they urge us Christians to approach the Scriptures as the people of God, people who know and are known by God. We should believe the Scriptures in the first place because our God draws near to us in them, draws us near to him. Once we have been found and transformed, that should change the way we approach the Scriptures. We then are those of faith seeking understanding, not those of doubt seeking justifications/proof. I think that spiritual sensibility goes a long to towards relaxing our anxieties when engaging with the tricky realia of the biblical text. It doesn't mean that the Bible's claims suddenly become either nonfalsifiable or baseless, but it gives us a good measure of the patience we need to let Scripture form our understanding of how God ought/has revealed himself to us. Thanks for this piece.
I love this: "I do not think we can talk about Scripture’s authority (or purpose) without talking about God…. I realize this is a “chicken and egg” kind of dilemma. What comes first? God? Scripture? Why not Jesus? … Scripture cannot hang out there, as some kind of independent, self-justifying object apart from other theological claims we make."
I think these comments are deeply valuable because they urge us Christians to approach the Scriptures as the people of God, people who know and are known by God. We should believe the Scriptures in the first place because our God draws near to us in them, draws us near to him. Once we have been found and transformed, that should change the way we approach the Scriptures. We then are those of faith seeking understanding, not those of doubt seeking justifications/proof. I think that spiritual sensibility goes a long to towards relaxing our anxieties when engaging with the tricky realia of the biblical text. It doesn't mean that the Bible's claims suddenly become either nonfalsifiable or baseless, but it gives us a good measure of the patience we need to let Scripture form our understanding of how God ought/has revealed himself to us. Thanks for this piece.
I love this: "I do not think we can talk about Scripture’s authority (or purpose) without talking about God…. I realize this is a “chicken and egg” kind of dilemma. What comes first? God? Scripture? Why not Jesus? … Scripture cannot hang out there, as some kind of independent, self-justifying object apart from other theological claims we make."
I think these comments are deeply valuable because they urge us Christians to approach the Scriptures as the people of God, people who know and are known by God. We should believe the Scriptures in the first place because our God draws near to us in them, draws us near to him. Once we have been found and transformed, that should change the way we approach the Scriptures. We then are those of faith seeking understanding, not those of doubt seeking justifications/proof. I think that spiritual sensibility goes a long to towards relaxing our anxieties when engaging with the tricky realia of the biblical text. It doesn't mean that the Bible's claims suddenly become either nonfalsifiable or baseless, but it gives us a good measure of the patience we need to let Scripture form our understanding of how God ought/has revealed himself to us. Thanks for this piece.
It might be good to examine the definition and nature of "authority" as well. I can make very little sense of the mix of blind faith in and total rejection of various political, religious and cultural authorities that Evangelicals and others make today in seemingly easy and casual distinctions.
Strange too that in a time of lengthy and unending foreign wars marked by extraordinary domestic power grabs from governmental and commercial authorities, so many Christians seem concerned only with a conflict between secular authority and the gospel as it seems to pertain to "genital issues." What does the "authority" of scripture mean indeed, to Christians living within a decadent empire?
It might be good to examine the definition and nature of "authority" as well. I can make very little sense of the mix of blind faith in and total rejection of various political, religious and cultural authorities that Evangelicals and others make today in seemingly easy and casual distinctions.
Strange too that in a time of lengthy and unending foreign wars marked by extraordinary domestic power grabs from governmental and commercial authorities, so many Christians seem concerned only with a conflict between secular authority and the gospel as it seems to pertain to "genital issues." What does the "authority" of scripture mean indeed, to Christians living within a decadent empire?
It might be good to examine the definition and nature of "authority" as well. I can make very little sense of the mix of blind faith in and total rejection of various political, religious and cultural authorities that Evangelicals and others make today in seemingly easy and casual distinctions.
Strange too that in a time of lengthy and unending foreign wars marked by extraordinary domestic power grabs from governmental and commercial authorities, so many Christians seem concerned only with a conflict between secular authority and the gospel as it seems to pertain to "genital issues." What does the "authority" of scripture mean indeed, to Christians living within a decadent empire?