Evangelical No More: Should We Get Rid of Inerrancy?

Undoubtedly, the topic of the bible may prove to be the most challenging of all the four tenants of evangelicalism that I will be discussing. This too is a topic that I have written extensively about. There are many things that I would have said differently on this matter in many of those previous posts, so I would like to take this opportunity to speak with a bit more clarity of what concerns me about an evangelical posture of the bible. 

According to our source, we evangelicals have a high regard for biblical authority and especially biblical inerrancy. My new friend, John H Armstrong, explained in a lecture that inerrancy is a relatively new term and is little more than a word used to stir up fights.

It’s a polarizing term. Affirm it and you’re in, and if you can’t you’re out.  I would happily affirm the term inerrancy, but only if I could have a few hours time in which what is meant by inerrancy is explained to me by the individual asking the question, and only then could I explain why I do or do not agree. I’m not trying to be slippery here, it’s just that generic terms over simplify complicated issues.

Allow me to explain where I’m coming from:

When I began my education at Lancaster Bible College I did not own a bible. In my first semester I began a class called Biblical Hermeneutics. That class was awesome for two reasons:

First, it’s where Amanda and I began our relationship. We would get together and do “Bib Herm homework,” which means we’d do about an hour or so of homework, grab some dinner and then watch a movie. Second, I was so enthused about what I was learning it was like my professor was rubbing the spot in my brain much the same way rubbing a dog behind the ear makes his leg kick. I was so excited about the content of that class that I wouldn’t sleep for days. “On Fire” doesn’t even begin to describe my passion that first (and subsequent) semester at Lancaster Bible College. 

A few years later I adapted the curriculum and taught a condensed Biblical Hermeneutics Course to the church I was attending. To this day I think fondly of the time I shared with those folks because they allowed me to share my passion with them. 

Fast forward to my very first class at Biblical Theological Seminary with a brilliant man named Charles Zimmerman, and within a 30 second explanation, my air tight Hermeneutical approach came tumbling down. 

In explaining the progression of various eras, and discussing the modern era he pointed out a few key characteristics. He noted that the scientific method was created during this time. The scientific method taught us that if you apply the method, turn the crank; truth will come out the other side. He also noted that complex equations could be reduced to simple formulas (such as E=MC[2]).

 As a result, we’ve begun to treat the bible in much the same way. We create a process (Historical/Grammatical/Rhetorical/Theological); we turn the crank, and out will come proper interpretation. Not only that but we then formulate and catalogue this truth into an encyclopedic fashion. He explained further, but in that moment I was overwhelmed once again, with a mixture of elation and deflation. 

I was excited because I knew that something wasn’t quite right with my approach before I came to Biblical; or at the very least my approach was not complete. I was excited because Charles gave me the language to articulate what was missing. I was deflated because my entire system was so easily crumbled and I had to start all over. Having your constructs crumble and having to rebuild them is like death! 

I absolutely still utilize the methods I acquired at Lancaster Bible College. They are invaluable. Charles’ discourse however brought my interpretive method to the place from which exegetical work must occur; humility. 

The method I was taught at LBC wasn’t faulty, but the assumptions that came with it make me cringe when I reflect on how younger Ryan acted on them. I’m not passing the buck of responsibility, but I have seen that certain teachings in certain institutions conjure a certain response from their audiences.

One assumption was that by applying the method one was guaranteed proper interpretation. This was affirmed by phrases like

“There is one interpretation, many applications”

The problem is that we have enough history behind us to demonstrate that there are far more interpretations then just one. The one interpretation that we are after is that of the author’s intent as well as the audience’s reciprocation. As one BTS professor pointed out in class:

“How many of you have access to the original source? (I.e. the author)”

History has shown us that there are a multitude of interpretations by masterful scholars throughout the ages. We have scholars that come along and forever alter the way we thought we understood things. Luther is one that comes to my immediate mind. N.T. Wright is a modern example. Scot McKnight explains the irony at work between these two scholars:

“The New Perspective contends that many defenders of the Reformers’ view of justification are defending Tradition even as the New Perspective seeks one more time to return to the Bible, in its historical context, to find what it originally said (91).”

Every Biblical author and subsequent theologian has done their task in a specific context. The claim that we can fully understand and apply the intent of the original author is a bit exaggerated. That does not mean that we do not try, but it certainly means that we must acknowledge the possibility of getting it wrong. 

Now, the reason for all of this interpretation talk is to point out something that strikes me as a bit inconsistent. Our validation for the bible itself does not seem to be consistent with our method of interpretation. Phraseology like “inerrancy” is a cataloguing of many other biblical texts filtered through its own assumed conclusion. 

 I am trying to be very, VERY CAREFUL here because I never want to denigrate the bible. 

The evangelical packaging on inerrancy taken to its fullest conclusions by bible college students, clergy, and the laymen alike makes fundamental sweeping assumptions about the bible that are external to the bibles contents. So, doctrines of inerrancy and infallibility are established to validate the source upon which all other doctrines are built. 

If you are hearing my words as a full frontal assault on the bible I would ask that you take this into consideration. I will gladly defend inerrancy so long as I am permitted the opportunity to explain the rich complexities of the bible which terms like inerrancy lack in doing. Without this defining work I find "inerrancy" to be a disservice to the Word of God. 

There are a plethora of consequences from the implications of inerrancy in its most extreme form. It becomes difficult to grapple with the progressive nature of revelation. It squelches provocative thought and important dialogue about the contextual nature in which the bible was written. It can eradicate the discernment of a Spirit filled community in making important decisions as they labor in adherence to an extreme literalism. I could (and probably should) explain each one of these points further but this blog is already entirely too long.

I’ll leave you with this thought. Just last week my professor, Dr. Todd Mangum, began a discussion that stirred my heart and gave me almost a mission statement for how I will do the task of theologizing in the future. Reducing the bibles teachings on the attributes of God to singular terms, we studied the passages that brought us to those terms (holiness, loving, omniscient, omnipotent and so on).

Dr. Mangum had three people in the class describe characteristics of their spouses. When asked to explain what those characteristics meant each told a story about their spouse to describe the term they used to define them. In much the same way the biblical passages that were used to describe God were found in the context of a narrative. Mangum pointed out that when we are trying to get to know someone we do not turn to Webster’s Dictionary for a definition of their attributes, rather we hear a story about them.

 "God is not a recipe, formula, or equation that we can manipulate. God is a person."

The boiling down of God’s attributes into singular words has us at the helm in pinpointing and defining who and what God is. It has us mastering God. In the context of those narratives we should employ the function of God such as Coppedge does:

• Transcendent Creator

• Sovereign King

• Personal Revealer

• Priest

• Righteous Judge

• Loving Father

• Powerful Redeemer

• Good Shepherd

• Teacher

• Friend

In these descriptions it is the function of God that would suggest that there remains an exchange. That is, God has something to teach us in relation to each one of these functions rather than us believing that because we understand what an attribute means, we understand God.

It is through the bible that God has revealed himself to us. Describing the bible as inerrant is like describing God as loving, and then going on to define loving apart from the sending and giving of his Son Jesus Christ.

At this level, the term “inerrant” or “infallible” is an inadequate description of the Word of God. This I fear has conjured up the “Fallacy of Atomization”. That by describing something we can understand it and thus we have captured it in its entirety. The least I can say is that this has been at work within me, and that I have seen it at work in many others like me. Perhaps we ought to reconsider our terms. I fear that we are defining and alienating ourselves further and further into corners with terms like “inerrant.”

I feel less and less compelled to speak of the bible in terms of inerrancy when I converse with people. As a great man and theologian once said:

"When you're talking to people don't talk about the bible, because then you'll spend all of your time defending it. When you're talking to people don't talk about your theology, because then you'll spend all of your time defending it. When you're talking to people, talk about Jesus." - Stephen Taylor