Inerrancy Continued

Dan and I have recently been exploring the notion of inerrancy, with a number of posts going back and forth between us:

Dan's initial post: Life + God
My first response: Ehrman and Inerrancy
Dan's response: Biblical Inerrancy

It's a great dialogue we've got going, and I think I can fruitfully continue it - for one more post at least. =]

I agree fully with Dan in that inerrancy isn't just something for academics to squabble about, but it is something the everyday believer must wrestle with as well:

I can see several of their points for believing that the bible is not inerrant; however, I think that the topic of biblical inerrancy and where it fits into Christianity must be examined not just for the select few, or those academic scholars, but even for the average Christian. I believe that it is naiive (sic) for Christians to completely ignore the topic and just say that the bible is inerrant without questioning anything.

This is especially true for 'Bible-believing' evangelicals, of which there are a lot around. What one thinks of inerrancy directly affects how one incorporates and uses the Bible in life, as well as in the public forum. A couple examples:

1. The Bible says homosexuality is wrong--see, here are the relevant passages (blah blah and blah). The Bible is inerrant, so it tells us exactly what God's laws are. Therefore, I'm going to vote for the Conservatives because they won't legalize homosexual marriage.
2. The Bible says that God created the world in 6 days. The Bible is inerrant. Therefore, I'm going to oppose the Theory of Evolution. A real Christians should not believe in Evolution. Also, I'm going to throw big bucks into Creationist literature and research. Why? Because I know God made the world in 6 days.

So it is clear that inerrancy isn't just for the academics. It affects our politics, our science, our relationship, our morals - everything.

Dan is also right to point out the big difference between modern historiography and ancient historiography. (Historiography is just a big fancy word for the study of the way history is/was written). The way an ancient approached "history" is very different from how a modern historian approaches "history". We need to remember this when we approach the Bible, which is composed of many very ancient pieces of literature.

At this point I want to clarify something. Though I do not believe in inerrancy, I still do believe that God uses the Bible to reach humanity. I cannot overlook the vast evidence that people all over the world, in different cultures and times, have experienced God as they read the Bible. Though the Bible is full of bias, inaccuracies, exaggerations, and errors, it is also full of a message of grace, mercy, love, and encouragement. Now this isn't an argument 'proving' the existence of God or the role of the Bible, but it does show that people have had what they thought were divine encounters while reading the Bible. I believe that this is God using the words in the Bible to touch human lives. But all the same, I don't think this is any different than God using a human to touch another human's life, or a sunset, or a walk on the beach, or a piece of music. I seem to recall the saying - the wind blows where it will.

I remember reading a book (The Heart of Christianity) by New Testament scholar and Theologian Marcus Borg. I quite liked his approach to the Bible. He says that the Bible is not primary to Christianity because of what it is: the revealed word of God; but because of what it does: its function as 'metaphor' and 'sacrament'. For Borg, the Bible is a sacred text not because it is sacred itself, but because it is a channel, a vessel, a mediator, of the Sacred. Scripture is still inspired, but inspiration isn't about how God wrote the text down. Scripture is inspired because it brings life to those who read it. It is inspired because it is a channel for humankind to encounter the Spirit of God.

Now the question I have is - what is meant by inerrancy? Dan writes:

I believe that God has spoken through His Word...God, a Holy God, STILL used imperfect humans. Therefore, when you have a perfect mouth piece (GOD), and then you have an imperfect scribe (the New Testament writers), there are bound to be mistakes, it's natural.

What is it that God has spoken through 'His Word'? How far does the imperfection of the human author reach?
(a) Grammar and spelling.
(b) Minor details of history - time and date.
(c) Contextual issues no longer relevant to today.
(d) Central narratives (e.g., exodus, monarchy, exile, Jesus)
(e) Central doctrines (sinfulness of mankind, need for Jesus as saviour)
I'm not laying down a slippery slope here. I believe that there is no guarantee that something is true just because it is in the Bible. However, just because I don't think there is a guarantee that it is true, it doesn't mean I'm saying that it's all false! I'm just saying that I can't invoke the doctrine of inerrancy and say, "that's that, it's all settled."

I think I'll end this response before it turns into a full blown essay. There is a very direct relationship between inerrancy and my life, but I'll keep that for a separate post which I'll post soon.

In the words of Paul, grace and peace.