thoughts on inerrancy

Chris Tilling has been doing a series of posts and podcasts on inerrancy that are worth checking out, and so far I've avoided commenting at any length. Now that he's done (and I've got it on the brain), I thought I'd offer some thoughts in response.

I have some quibbles and questions with some of what he has done. For example, most of what Chris says is more properly directed at a fundamentalist notion of absolute inerrancy, a target which (to be honest) is hard to miss, but he lumps this in with some of the more nuanced evangelical notions of inerrancy as if they are all the same beast. Also, I would point out that the doctrinal formulation which Chris ends up affirming declares that Scripture is "without error," which is just a straightforward way of saying "inerrant"; so in the end Chris affirms inerrancy but allows himself to qualify this--a generous latitude which I'm sure he would be eager to give to those who employ the actual term "inerrancy."

Still, Chris draws attention to some excellent criticisms of notions of inerrancy, even the more nuanced ones. I summarize these criticisms as one who is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society, for which I annually affirm its statement on inerrancy, and who teaches at an evangelical college which uses the terminology of inerrancy in its statement of faith. So, I mention these criticisms as one who stands within this tradition of affirming an inerrant Scripture--these are, in a way, a form of self-criticism.

The first criticism of a doctrine of inerrancy as it is often formulated is its relevance or usefulness. How helpful is a doctrinal formulation which depends on elusive concepts such as "in the original autographs" (a past-focused elusion), "when correctly interpreted" (a present-focused elusion), or "when all the facts become known" (a future-focused elusion)? None of these conditions will ever be fulfilled for us with any certainty, so how useful is a doctrine which depends on these conditions? True, any nuanced doctrine of inerrancy will inevitably be qualified with potentially ambiguous statements (note Chris' approved definition with its "salvation" clause, or my broad qualifications below), but these particular qualifications just noted are especially problematic because they are generally articulated within a foundationalist framework, in which certainty of doctrinal premises and conditions is all-important.

The second criticism of a doctrine of inerrancy as it is often practised is its significance. I absolutely reject the notion that one must believe in an inerrant Scripture in order for one to be doctrinally orthodox or to participate in salvation (no, those are not the same thing). In a similar vein, I also reject the notion that Scripture's authority depends on its inerrancy, or that a doctrine of inspiration necessarily entails an absolute inerrancy. I also categorically deny the idea that if one rejects the inerrancy of Scripture one has stepped onto the proverbial slippery slope which inevitably leads to doctrinal heterodoxy or loss of personal faith. Conversely, I also deny the idea that inerrancy somehow acts as a sure safeguard for doctrinal orthodoxy or personal faith. Yet all these ideas can be found in the practice (if rarely the formulation) of doctrines of inerrancy. Why do I reject these things? To put it simply, my rejection of these notions comes from my reading of Scripture, my understanding of historical theology, and my experience of shared faith within the community of believers. The foundation of our faith and of the Church is Jesus Christ, not Scripture; the ultimate revelation of God is Jesus Christ, not Scripture; the written Word of God (inspired Scripture) is a witness, along with the Spirit and the Church, to the spoken Word of God (the gospel of Jesus Christ) and the living Word of God (Jesus Christ himself), and it is in Him, not Scripture, that all the facets of salvation find their source. All this is Scripture's own self-testimony, the testimony of the Church historic and universal, and the testimony of my own experience in concert with other believers.

One might wonder after all this why I still affirm inerrancy. I do so because I believe the loving and faithful God ensures the trustworthiness of his revelatory acts in accordance with the purposes and means of those acts, and I believe Scripture to be a revelatory act of God given for salvific purposes and through human means. But why "inerrancy"? Because that's one of the words du jour used to describe this phenomenon by those with whom I most closely feel theological and spiritual kinship. Some may object that this is too postmodern (socially constructed meaning and all that) and too pragmatic (using theological terms as currency to gain access to a community). But that is simply one of the functions of humanly constructed theological terms and doctrines, and I've never seen a theological term or formulation which wasn't constructed with a view to social or community concerns. Some may object that my description above doesn't say enough, that it doesn't describe what this "trustworthiness" looks like. To this I can only reply that, while there are those among my evangelical sisters and brothers who would wish to affirm more than what I've just said by the term "inerrancy," none of them should wish to affirm any less by it.