I feel like this really speaks to inerrancy of scripture. We have put so much hope and faith in inerrancy of Scripture with out really questioning if inerrancy is something the early church fathers and new testament authors believed? Once the inerrancy egg breaks many people walk away and others stay. I personal held to inerrancy of scripture with my early walk with Christ as I have gained more knowledge the more messy scriptures became. Part of my faith was founded on inerrancy but luckily the majority of my faith was grounded on who Jesus is. I think that is the the main thing that has keep me faithful. It wasn't on the bible be perfect from a scientific or literary standard stand point, but it was about how Jesus softens the heart and gives out mercy to whoever freely asks for it.
Please see my reply to Penny Cox about the citation in Hebrews 10. I think your journey is very similar to mine in that there was an inherent simplicity about the idea of Biblical inerrancy, which I thoroughly bought into when I was much younger in the faith. I dispensed with it some time ago now, but in so doing have considered far more profound and sophisticated ways of thinking about the Bible which does not compromise its identity as divine communication - quite the opposite in fact it has enhanced it. The key thing for me is that considering the Bible to be perfect does not require me to consider it inerrant, although I fully sympathise with those who do not make the same distinction. It is entirely possible that I'm completely wrong and that the Bible is indeed inerrant and the arguments of those apologists who aimed to defend its inerrancy are right. My only issue is that my faith no longer hinges upon whether inerrancy is empirically true or not.
I actually think there is a lot of mileage in grappling with the tensions in the Biblical text. I have found that, more often than not, wrestling with the tensions opens up creative space for us to really consider what kind of text we're dealing with, in terms of genre, ancient literary tropes and ultimately, exegesis. The important issue there becomes what did the ancient Jesus movement think the text of scripture was for? This has to take into consideration, of course, that the 27 books of the New Testament as we understand them were not ratified until the middle of the 4th century. Despite the Quranic claim that Christians are people of the book, we are no such thing. We are people of the Messiah Jesus; the Bible is not the origin of Christian faith; it is the product of Christian faith (unlike Islam and to some degree Judaism, although the Quran insists that all three branches of the Abrahamic tree are people of the book). Even when we consider, for example, one of Paul's churches, there is evidence in Ephesians that letters were passed between congregations. Where this is unsaid, however, we have no necessary reason to assume that the believers say, in Corinth, knew anything about the letter to the Galatians. Couple that with the notion that literacy levels were low, the ancient faith had very little to do with reading texts, inerrant or otherwise! It had to do with hearing and living the gospel as taught and preached by the Apostolic community.
Anyway, all this of course is simply the stance I take; I want to always remain very sensitive and sympathetic to those brothers and sisters of mine who do very much stand on the issue of inerrancy and remain open to having my mind changed.
Thank you for pointing to the response with Penny Cox. I feel like I align with what you said. I grew up in a "religious" home. It was very hypocritical and there was shallow talk of Jesus and a lack of seriousness or follow through in action (Which I was the same way myself).
When I went to college I did a "bible study" with a group that really questioned whether I was taking scripture seriously or not (but it really questioned was I really taking Jesus seriously?). I think that is something that inerrancy group does bring to light "do we take Jesus seriously?" But within that they base taking Jesus seriously off of "do you take the bible as never having any humanistic natures about it." Pete Enns in his book "Inspiration and Incarnation" addresses this (I am only half way through the book). We can grasp a concept of Jesus being fully God and fully human but struggle with taking scripture as fully from God and human as well. It is a paradox that I currently try to grasp and I feel has enhanced my faith. I don't think there should be disunity between inerrantist and Infallibilists (where I am at currently). We both have trust built within scripture that helps point us to understanding Jesus. I agree we should remain sensitive and sympathetic to inerrantist (shoot I was one for the longest time) but also hope that having an open mind to change is a two way street. I hope both trains of thought are approached with kindness, respect, and love with a focus on a commitment to Jesus. I apologize if I didn't say things in a sensitive manor, my attempt was just trying to talk through my change in perspective over time.
Yes - I think how some people hold “scriptural inerrancy” as a basis of their faith fits the point being made in the allegory. It’s ultimate a reliance on certainty that pushes away fear, and so must be protected at all costs psychologically. Any apparent inconsistency to inerrancy is a dropping of the egg. I totally believe the Bible is the word of God but learning to view it as a continuous story that does lead to Jesus has freed me from needing to have every technical defence at the ready.
You have very much hit the nail on the head with the word ‘story’.
This became most apparent to me reading the work of critical missiologists, who understand the gospel in narrative terms and so see the work of Christian mission within that broader context. People like Michael Goheen, Michael Gorman and Richard B Hays have been particularly helpful conversation partners to that end.
I also think that you are absolutely correct to suggest that there is some kind of psychological comfort that comes from the certainty inherent in inerrancy. This would certainly explain some of the extraordinary lengths that certain apologists go to in order to defend their positions. There are times when their explanations actually strike me as being reasonably persuasive; other times they employ such desperate special pleading that it simply begs belief. I would also say in defence of these apologists that even when I find their arguments for inerrancy unpersuasive, the forays they make into some of the social and cultural contexts of the passages can be informative. I have found narrative approaches however to be far more conducive and intellectually satisfying when it comes to apprehending the Christian gospel.
I feel like this really speaks to inerrancy of scripture. We have put so much hope and faith in inerrancy of Scripture with out really questioning if inerrancy is something the early church fathers and new testament authors believed? Once the inerrancy egg breaks many people walk away and others stay. I personal held to inerrancy of scripture with my early walk with Christ as I have gained more knowledge the more messy scriptures became. Part of my faith was founded on inerrancy but luckily the majority of my faith was grounded on who Jesus is. I think that is the the main thing that has keep me faithful. It wasn't on the bible be perfect from a scientific or literary standard stand point, but it was about how Jesus softens the heart and gives out mercy to whoever freely asks for it.
Dear Christopher,
Please see my reply to Penny Cox about the citation in Hebrews 10. I think your journey is very similar to mine in that there was an inherent simplicity about the idea of Biblical inerrancy, which I thoroughly bought into when I was much younger in the faith. I dispensed with it some time ago now, but in so doing have considered far more profound and sophisticated ways of thinking about the Bible which does not compromise its identity as divine communication - quite the opposite in fact it has enhanced it. The key thing for me is that considering the Bible to be perfect does not require me to consider it inerrant, although I fully sympathise with those who do not make the same distinction. It is entirely possible that I'm completely wrong and that the Bible is indeed inerrant and the arguments of those apologists who aimed to defend its inerrancy are right. My only issue is that my faith no longer hinges upon whether inerrancy is empirically true or not.
I actually think there is a lot of mileage in grappling with the tensions in the Biblical text. I have found that, more often than not, wrestling with the tensions opens up creative space for us to really consider what kind of text we're dealing with, in terms of genre, ancient literary tropes and ultimately, exegesis. The important issue there becomes what did the ancient Jesus movement think the text of scripture was for? This has to take into consideration, of course, that the 27 books of the New Testament as we understand them were not ratified until the middle of the 4th century. Despite the Quranic claim that Christians are people of the book, we are no such thing. We are people of the Messiah Jesus; the Bible is not the origin of Christian faith; it is the product of Christian faith (unlike Islam and to some degree Judaism, although the Quran insists that all three branches of the Abrahamic tree are people of the book). Even when we consider, for example, one of Paul's churches, there is evidence in Ephesians that letters were passed between congregations. Where this is unsaid, however, we have no necessary reason to assume that the believers say, in Corinth, knew anything about the letter to the Galatians. Couple that with the notion that literacy levels were low, the ancient faith had very little to do with reading texts, inerrant or otherwise! It had to do with hearing and living the gospel as taught and preached by the Apostolic community.
Anyway, all this of course is simply the stance I take; I want to always remain very sensitive and sympathetic to those brothers and sisters of mine who do very much stand on the issue of inerrancy and remain open to having my mind changed.
Love and blessings,
Andy.
This is so helpful.
Many thanks for coming on board Terry!
Thank you for pointing to the response with Penny Cox. I feel like I align with what you said. I grew up in a "religious" home. It was very hypocritical and there was shallow talk of Jesus and a lack of seriousness or follow through in action (Which I was the same way myself).
When I went to college I did a "bible study" with a group that really questioned whether I was taking scripture seriously or not (but it really questioned was I really taking Jesus seriously?). I think that is something that inerrancy group does bring to light "do we take Jesus seriously?" But within that they base taking Jesus seriously off of "do you take the bible as never having any humanistic natures about it." Pete Enns in his book "Inspiration and Incarnation" addresses this (I am only half way through the book). We can grasp a concept of Jesus being fully God and fully human but struggle with taking scripture as fully from God and human as well. It is a paradox that I currently try to grasp and I feel has enhanced my faith. I don't think there should be disunity between inerrantist and Infallibilists (where I am at currently). We both have trust built within scripture that helps point us to understanding Jesus. I agree we should remain sensitive and sympathetic to inerrantist (shoot I was one for the longest time) but also hope that having an open mind to change is a two way street. I hope both trains of thought are approached with kindness, respect, and love with a focus on a commitment to Jesus. I apologize if I didn't say things in a sensitive manor, my attempt was just trying to talk through my change in perspective over time.
Brother in Christ,
Chris
Yes - I think how some people hold “scriptural inerrancy” as a basis of their faith fits the point being made in the allegory. It’s ultimate a reliance on certainty that pushes away fear, and so must be protected at all costs psychologically. Any apparent inconsistency to inerrancy is a dropping of the egg. I totally believe the Bible is the word of God but learning to view it as a continuous story that does lead to Jesus has freed me from needing to have every technical defence at the ready.
Dear Andrew,
You have very much hit the nail on the head with the word ‘story’.
This became most apparent to me reading the work of critical missiologists, who understand the gospel in narrative terms and so see the work of Christian mission within that broader context. People like Michael Goheen, Michael Gorman and Richard B Hays have been particularly helpful conversation partners to that end.
I also think that you are absolutely correct to suggest that there is some kind of psychological comfort that comes from the certainty inherent in inerrancy. This would certainly explain some of the extraordinary lengths that certain apologists go to in order to defend their positions. There are times when their explanations actually strike me as being reasonably persuasive; other times they employ such desperate special pleading that it simply begs belief. I would also say in defence of these apologists that even when I find their arguments for inerrancy unpersuasive, the forays they make into some of the social and cultural contexts of the passages can be informative. I have found narrative approaches however to be far more conducive and intellectually satisfying when it comes to apprehending the Christian gospel.
Love and blessings,
Andy.