Inerrancy and disunity

Recall that among committed inerrantists we will find those who believe in "predestination" and "free will," and in "premillennial" and "postmillennial" eschatology, in "infant baptism" and "believer's baptism," in the "elder rule" and "congregational rule." On almost every important interpretive question in every biblical book, we find a wide variety of "inerrantist" readings. So it is clear that inerrancy does not guarantee a correct reading of Scripture, nor does it prevent all sorts of exegetical tomfoolery...Even though evangelicals deny the diversity of Scripture, the theological diversity within evangelicalism is a good and ready indicator of Scripture's truer nature...It is nardly conceivable that evangelicals could assent to so many differing and contradictory viewpoints if the Bible spoke as clearly and univocally as we are wont to suppose.

Kenton Sparks in Christian Smith, The Bible Made Impossible (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2011), 26.

Inerrancy and disunity

N.T. Wright observes, "It seems to be the case that the more you insist that you are based ont eh Bible, the more fissiparous you become; the church splits up into more and more little groups, each thinking that they have got biblical truth right." Likewise,Kevin Vanhoozer admits that "inerrancy--the belief that the Bible speaks truly in all that it affirms--does not necessarily generate interpretative agreement among those who hold to it...It is one thing to posit the Bible's truthfulness in all that it affirms, quite another to say what the truth of the Bible is." Similarly, D.A. Carson notes that "I apeak to those with a high view of Scripture: it is very distressing to contemplate how many differences there are among us as to what Scripture actually says...The fact remains that among those who believe the canonical sixty-six books are nothing less than the Word of God written there is a disturbing array of mutually incompatible theological opinions." As far back as 1958, Geoffrey Bromiley had observed--anticipating the present book's view--that "We have to recognize that the Bible is...a fruitful source of dissension and disunity in and among churches, so that acceptance of its authority does not solve at once the problem of unity...The interpretation of the Bible gives rise to a whole series of more or less important and divisive differences...These are obviously very real difficulties which cannot be ignored even if they cannot be fully embraced and answered....Even in this sphere (of the Bible) there is the constant bias to disunity."

In Christian Smith, The Bible Made Impossible (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2011), 18-19

Biblical Inerrancy and the Licona Controversy, Christian News

Christianity Today just wrote up a brief article concerning the controversy swirling around Michael Licona and his interpretation of Matthew 27:51-54 in his 700 page volume defending the historical, physical resurrection of Jesus, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach. You can read more about the controversy - as well as a critique of Licona's interpretation here: Biblical Inerrancy and the Licona Controversy, Christian News. Personally, it's sad that what is widely acknowledged (even by Licona's critics) to be a very capable, thorough, and orthodox work is being called into question simply because he offers a symbolic/apocalyptic interpretation of four verses from Matthew which have caused scholars to scratch their heads for years.

The issue, of course, is bigger than this particular text. The issue is has really become about Licona's committment to the innerancy of scripture and what it means to believe that scripture is "without error." Can a person hold to the inerrancy of scripture without adopting a rigid literalism regarding certain texts? The above article quotes the Chicago statement on inerrancy:

Article XVIII of the Chicago Statement makes this point with precision: “We
affirm that the text of the Scripture is to be interpreted by
grammatico-historical exegesis, taking account of its literary forms and
devices, and that Scripture is to interpret Scripture. We deny the legitimacy of
any treatment of the text or quest for sources lying behind it that leads to
relativizing, dehistoricizing, or discounting its teaching, or rejecting its
claims to authorship.” Furthermore, the Chicago Statement requires that “history
must be treated as history.”

But this quote highlights a problem faced regularly in our exegesis of an inerrant text. A committment to grammatico-historical exegesis requires that we do in fact take into account the literary forms and devices of scripture - including figurative or symbolic language. Most everyone would agree that Jehovah's Witnesses are not being faithful to the intent of scripture to take the number 144,000 literally in the book of Revelation. But it's pretty noncontroversial (in most circles) to identify the language of Revelation as largely symbolic. But what about other genres like the gospels?  Licona isn't questioning whether the text of Matthew 27 is true. He's questioning whether or not a literalistic interpretation is faithful to the text's intent. It's not as simple as saying, "I believe in inerrancy, so therefore, I believe the text to be literally true." The word "literally" has been smuggled into the definition and has had the effect of dramatically changing the definition. The bumper sticker cliche "The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it." may sound good to some. But it is not only naive, it also (ironically) undermines the authority of the text.  A committment to inerrancy actually calls us to study and discuss the literary meaning of a text not just the literal meaning of a text.  A committment to inerrancy calls us to robust and humble hermeneutics where Christians may actually disagree with how to take certain texts while agreeing theologically with each other about what scripture is. We simply disagree with the best way to understand it.

Maybe Licona's right and maybe he's wrong on this text.  But what this controversy reveals is the danger of a simplistic and overly literalistic understanding of inerrancy.  It is frightening that some are calling for him to be kicked out of the ETS simply because he doesn't walk lock-step (on this ONE text) with this rigid definition of inerrancy. My goodness. Is this all that it takes for us to disfellowship each other? Have mercy. (It's worth noting, by the way, that Licona is now rather agnostic about the text in question. He says that it may be literal or figurative. But apparently that's not good enough for some of his inquisitors.) I am committed to inerrancy, but it's no wonder that so many young theologians and students are so cynical about this whole issue in light of these types of witch hunts.

A contemporary discussion on inerrancy and authority...

What role should the Bible have in society? A panel discussion with Tim Keller, Alister McGrath, and Brian McLaren. It's well worth a watch.

Homosexual Hermeneutics

When we refer to “homosexual persons” we do not mean situational homosexuality. This refers to homosexual practices under certain conditions, for example when people are isolated for long times in prison or at sea, or to experiment sex, or to practices that derive from a traumatic experience or physical disorder. “True” homosexuality is characterized by an emotional and physico-sexual propensity towards others of the same sex. It refers not only to the sexual act, but also to a way of thinking, feeling and behavior as an expression of love. Therefore, homosexual persons find expression in specific sexual acts. The biblical documents did not know of this homosexuality and its specific problems, but were concerned only with the commission of homosexual acts.

Lilly Nortje-Meyer, “The Homosexual Body without Apology: A Positive Link between the Canaanite Woman in Matthew 15:21-28 and Homosexual Interpretation of Biblical Texts,” Religion and Theology 9/1&2 (2002), 118-119.

Homosexual Hermeneutics

Christianity is an incarnational religion. It started off as a religion and theology from below. The Holy Spirit worked in the first place through the body of Jesus. He was bodily conceived by the Holy Spirit and was bodily filled with the Spirit. Therefore, incarnational theology should challenge metaphysic and dualistic thought. The bodies of women and homosexual persons should be taken as sites of revelation in the creation of theology. Those Bible passages that jeopardize homosexual persons and women should either be removed or should be identified as unacceptable to the Christian faith. The homosexual person should be able to celebrate the homosexual body without apology.

Lilly Nortje-Meyer, “The Homosexual Body without Apology: A Positive Link between the Canaanite Woman in Matthew 15:21-28 and Homosexual Interpretation of Biblical Texts,” Religion and Theology 9/1&2 (2002), 119-133.

Emerging Church Hermeneutics

Emergents sometimes exercise a deconstructive critique of the Bible’s view of God. Sometimes I hear it in ways that are no more interesting than Marcion’s old (and heretical) critique of the violent God of the Old Testament. Yet upon close inspection, the rumblings are subtler and more sophisticated, and the struggle is palpable and genuine. For some emergents, the Bible includes portrayals of God that cannot be squared with their understanding of a God of love.

Scot McKnight, “The Ironic Faith of Empergents,” Christianity Today, September 2008, 63.

Feminist Hermeneutics

If the Bible may be understood as deeply energized by the spirit of God then it can also be understood as limited by human perception and tainted by human sin (not necessarily but in accordance with the evidence therein)…With this understanding of the Bible, I can dismiss as tragic Paul’s apparent embrace of slavery and the subjugation of women.

Barbara S. Blaisdell

Feminist Hermeneutics

We must be prepared to accept the reality of aspect of the Bible with which we disagree. An example is the masculo-centric language and general male chauvinist attitudes we find in the Bible. The Bible must not be forgiven at this point; it must be defeated…for the present we must be firm in our argument against such evils or limitations as they are found in the Bible, for example, refusing to use any such offending passages in liturgical expressions without rewording them into language that shows full appreciation for women as well as men.

J.L. Hardegree

John Wycliffe

For him the Bible was an all-sufficient guide without contradictions; mirroring the truth of God, it gave access to metaphysical reality. Wycliffe not only insisted on the primacy of Scripture; he also refused to separate theology from the Bible and laid a foudnation for reform by calling for church doctrine and practice to line up with Scripture. Using Augustine's principles, Wycliffe believed that the law of love should guide interpretation, that faith precedes understanding, and that the essential message of Scripture is plain to those who submit humbly to illumination by the Holy Spirit. Although colored by allegory, his preaching and his theological works were always built upon the brammatical-historical sense of Scripture, and he said all allegory should have a Christological focus. Wycliffe stood for the priesthood of the believer: individuals could work out their own salvation with the help of the gospel and without the church being the essential mediator of grace. Since this called for a Bible in the common language, he began translating the Vulgate into English. This work was completed after his death, probably by Nicholas of Hereford and John Purvey.

James T. Spivey Jr. in Bruce Corley et al, Biblical Hermeneutics, 2nd ed (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2002), 109.

Augustine

Augustine held a high view of Scripture: divinely inspired, it is without error and of supreme authority in matters of faith. With respect to its purpose, to bring salvation, the message is simple; but beyond that it is sublimely suprarational. Because unaided human reason cannot penetrate its profound truths, one must come to the Bible first in faith. It is faith which informs understanding, not vice versa. He said the goal of Bible study should be to learn how to love God and one’s neighbor. Therefore he guided interpretation by the twofold law of love: glean from it the principles of a pure life, which teach how to love God and one’s neighbor; and learn sound doctrine, which gives true knowledge about God and humankind.

James T. Spivey Jr. in Bruce Corley et al, Biblical Hermeneutics, 2nd ed (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2002), 101.

Roman Catholic Hermeneutics

The Holy, Ecumenical and General Synod of Trent…having this aim always before its eyes, that errors may be removed and the purity of the Gospel be preserved in the Church, which was before promised through the prophets in the Holy Scriptures and which our Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God first published by his own mouth and then commanded to be preached through his Apostles to every creature as a source of all saving truth and of discipline of conduct; and perceiving that this truth and this discipline are contained in written books and in unwritten traditions, which were received by the Apostles from the lips of Christ himself, or, by the same apostles, at the dictation of the Holy Spirit, and were handed on and have come down to us; following the example of the orthodox Father, this Synod receives and venerates, with equal pious affection and reverence, all the books both of the New and Old Testaments…together with the said Traditions…as having been given either from the lips of Christ or by the dictation of the Holy Spirit and preserved in unbroken succession in the Catholic Church.

Henry Bettenson, ed., Documents of the Christian Church (London: Oxford, 1963), 261.

Neo-Orthodoxy

The neo-orthodox view is that the Bible is a fallible human book. Nevertheless, it is the instrument of God’s revelation to us, for it is a record of God’s personal revelation in Christ. Revelation, however, is personal; the Bible is not a verbally inspired revelation from God. It is merely an errant human means through which one can encounter the personal revelation who is Christ. In itself it is not the Word of God; at best, the Bible only becomes the Word of God to the individual when he encounters Christ through it.

Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible (Chicago: Moody, 1986), 175.