I have often participated in discussions about the use of the word “inerrancy” in reference to the Hebrew Bible, both online and via good old-fashioned physical dialog (which I should note, does not normally involve physical contact such as slapping someone). James McGrath has recently reviewed G.K. Beale’s book on the topic. I have not yet read Beale’s work, and so I cannot comment on it. However, John Hobbins has waded into the discussion with a post in which he argues yet again that Christians simply cannot dispense with the term inerrancy.
I should note at this point that I am friends with John, and respect him greatly. I also respect my wife who, last time I checked, shares his view. However, I simply do not see how what Mandy and John call inerrancy has any relationship to what the mass of conservative evangelicalism calls inerrancy. I think that John understands this, and so he argues that we need not give up the language altogether, but rather that we need to seek to “appropriate” and “re-contextualize” it. It seems to me that this is another way of saying “redefine.” That may be fine and good, but I think it is a dead-end debate for the church.
Lest I be accused of simply disregarding John’s proposition without due consideration and a proposition of my own, I present the following reasons for abandoning the term inerrancy.
1. The term has, on the whole, been co-opted by conservative evangelicalism to mean a very narrow view of Scripture. Specifically that view which has been codified in the Chicago Statement on inerrancy. It is highly unlikely that any group will be able to wrest control of the word’s definition from conservative evangelicals and the Chicago statement. For better or for worse, the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy is the modern definition of the term.
2. Inerrancy frames the question in the wrong light. To every lay person whom I speak with, “inerrancy” frames the question of the Bible in the following terms: a) God wrote/inspired the Bible, therefore it cannot have errors or b) God could not have inspired the Bible because it has errors. I believe that Peter Enns brings up a similar point in Inspiration & Incarnation. Both of those ways of framing the question of the Bible in relation to God and inspiration are unhelpful.
3. Relatedly, the language of inerrancy in our modern world automatically causes one to expect from the Bible a definition of error which conforms to our modern, scientific definition of error. Such a standard simply cannot be applied to a document that is over two thousand years old. It is patently absurd to expect the Bible to conform to our definition of error, yet that is exactly what we do when we use language such as “inerrant.”
Could all of the above be overcome with proper explanation? Most likely. However, is it worth fighting over a word? I’m not convinced that it is. In fact, I think that the Church, and those in it who wish to call themselves evangelical but do not agree with the definition of inerrancy contained within the Chicago Statement, would do much better to simply begin using different language to refer to what we mean. Am I advocating abandoning the term “inerrancy” to the conservative evangelical sect? Yes, I am. I don’t see where the word, regardless of how it may have been used in the past, is a good term to use for today.
I agree whole-heartedly with John on this, that each generation must appropriate doctrine for themselves. This means, at times, that a particular generation must dispose of antiquated language in favor of language that more adequately does what language is meant to do–communicate something.
In the end, discussion is good, and I’m sure that is partially John’s intent with his post. Nevertheless, I do believe that what we ought to be discussing is not how to restore a modicum of balance to the word “inerrant,” but rather what other word(s) might better describe what we want inerrant to mean.
