Ultimately, I think Joseph Kelly is right when he says that this debate is really about worldview. But, I think that we can narrow things down a bit more. Certainly worldview plays a huge part in this debate, but I think that a more specific issue is also at play. I’ve mentioned genre and its importance in biblical interpretation several times recently. This, I’m afraid, is another example. Mohler understands Genesis 1 as an historical narrative. I’m not certain why he sees it as such. I had a discussion with someone who agrees with Mohler recently, and his reasoning for Genesis 1 being understood as historical narrative is that such an understanding was “the plain meaning” of the text. This kind of thinking has obvious problems (e.g., “the plain meaning of the text” presupposes an understanding of genre, thereby determining how the plain meaning is arrived at. Plain meaning in poetry is quite different from plain meaning in a royal annul, which is quite different from plain meaning in a law code, etc, etc). I would assume that Mohler has more robust reasons, but I am not aware of them.

So, Mohler understands Genesis 1 as some kind of historical narrative, because of this he believes that Genesis 1 is supposed to convey a more or less literal “this is the way it happened,” view of creation. But Bible scholars, some of them quite conservative, have proposed a wide variety of ways to understand Genesis 1. For instance, some think it is a liturgical hymn. Others think that it is a functional chiasm, the first several days creating abstract things and the later days creating the concrete containers (cf., Kline, Kingdom Prologue). Still others see Genesis 1 as speaking of the world not in literal terms, but in temple imagery (e.g., John Walton). I say all of this to say that I believe that Mohler, in making his understanding of Genesis 1 a requirement for being a Christian, has in fact made his understanding of the genre of Genesis 1 a requirement for being a Christian. As far as I am aware, the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy is entirely compatible with any of the views I mention above. That makes Mohler a conservative among conservatives.

It is probably obvious that I find some very large flaws in Mohler’s interpretation of the Bible. I think he has failed to take into account a plethora of cognate literature. Most disappointingly, I have not–as of yet–seen him discuss the ancient near eastern literature that has a bearing on Genesis 1. Even more disappointingly, I have not seen him discuss his own understanding of why Genesis 1′s genre ought to be understood as a literal narrative explaining creation in detail as opposed to a polemic against other nations’ understanding of creation, or as opposed to temple imagery, or as opposed to any other number of options.

I’ll be dealing with Genesis 1 and genre again in the next few days, this time with reference to Proverbs 8. Stay tuned.

Advanced Hebrew Grammar with Tom Petter
Calvin and I are really looking forward to this. It’s an independent study, but since we’re both taking it we’ll essentially be doing all the work together – which will include translating and syntactically tagging the entire book of Judges. I’m excited to see how this goes.

Intermediate Greek with Dave Mathewson
I’m kinda neutral towards this class – it’s required for my MABL and I really need it anyways to help further cement my Greek. But, as I’ve mentioned before on multiple occasions, Greek isn’t really my first love. However, I’ve heard that Dr. Mathewson has a different take on the Greek verbal system than we learned in Greek I & II so that should be at least mildly interesting to learn about.

Prophetical Books with Donna Petter
This is the first class I will have taken with the other Petter at GCTS, so I’m curious to see what her teaching style is like. You may remember that I took Poetical Books with Doug Stuart last semester and had fun typing my Lamentations exegesis paper, which has shown up in various parts over the summer on this blog. This time, I’m hoping to be able to do something in Jeremiah. I may also find out if I can sub in a research paper instead of the exegesis paper – since I’ve already done one at the 700 level.

Exegesis of James with Sean McDonough
I took Exegesis of John, my required Gospel exegesis course this past summer, and now I’m getting the epistle requirement out of the way this fall. I am, of course, neatly avoiding Paul. James is one of my favorite NT books, so I’m sure this class will present some fun tidbits for thought (even if it is more GREEK).

Middle Egyptian I with Alejandro Botta
We are taking advantage of the BTI again this year, and will be taking this class at Boston University. From what I understand, it’s a joint offering from the School of Theology and the Archaeology Department. We already have our textbooks for this one (just came in today!) and I’m pretty psyched. It’s going to be a lot of work, but worth it, I think.

Contemporary Theology and Theologians
This is the SemLink that I have had all summer to work on but have barely touched. Unfortunately, between two summer classes and visiting family for the past 3 weeks, I haven’t had a whole lot of spare time. That means this is essentially a sixth class I have to do this semester, which will make my life very hectic, to say the least. Nevertheless, I am and have been looking forward to some of the reading.

Although I attend church (and very much love my present church context) I do, at times, find myself wondering if I believe in the same God in which much of Evangelical Christianity believes. The answer is often “no.” This was a pretty scary realization when I originally…realized it.¹ Soon after this, however, I figured that I believed in the God of the Bible, and I’d take him over the theological construct to which much of Evangelicalism clings.

In short, John Anderson pretty much sums up who God is, “God is . . . . a paradox. Vulnerable yet powerful. Tricky yet faithful. Present yet absent.” My God is a paradox, I’m okay with that. I understand that for many people God being a paradox is an uncomfortable thought. I’m sensitive to that, but if one claims to have a high view of Scripture, how can one dismiss the Scriptures’ view of God?

Hebrew Prepositions
Several of us had a bit of fun discussing Hebrew prepositions, how they work, and how they ought to be translated over at Daniel and Tonya’s blog. See here and here for the gist of the discussion. As Mandy pointed out in one of the comment threads, this is an excellent example of why one really ought to learn Hebrew.

Pastors and PhD
I have mentioned this topic before, but Doug Mangum brought it up again. His second post was interacting with a post by Brian (of συνεσταύρωμαι). I agree with both Doug and Brian, having more clergy with PhDs would be a wonderful thing. However, at least within conservative Evangelical circles, I’m not entirely convinced that churches are ready for this. I would love to see more pastors with PhDs, but I would also love to see professors who spend time in their local congregations not only teaching Sunday school, but teaching some kind of “course” on the Bible generally, or their specialization in particular (ie, ritual studies, wisdom literature, former prophets, Psalms, Hebrew poetry, Hebrew narrative, etc, etc, etc). Such professors might find that lay people are more interested in esoteric topics than one might expect.

Inerrancy
Art Boulet has a long running series on the topic of inerrancy. This series is well worth reading, the most recent of them can be found here. A listing of the entire series can be had here. There isn’t much more that needs saying in regards to this, other than that I think Art is right on target.

Peter Enns has also been blogging on this topic in a series of posts in which in responds to Bruce Waltke. Each post in the series is helpful and informative. The most recent may be found here. Other posts in the series are easily found on Dr. Enns’ blog.

I did not have the chance to read the book thoroughly in the course of writing my paper, but what I did read interested me enough that after turning in my paper, I returned the library’s copy and ordered my own, which just arrived. I hope to be able to read completely and review the book sometime this summer.

I also hope to be able to devote a little more time to blogging in general, now that summer is here. I will be taking 3 classes throughout the course of the summer: Interpreting the New Testament, Gospel of John, and Contemporary Theology and Theologians. None of these are my area of study (darn degree requirements), but I expect I’ll find them at least mildly entertaining. Maybe I’ll at least get some blogging fodder out of them!

Doug’s conclusion, that faith and critical biblical scholarship are not mutually exclusive, is absolutely correct. I have ministered to, and currently minister to, youth and young adults. Teenagers often find themselves questioning their parents beliefs and views (religious, social, political, you name it). I’ve often seen the harm that can be done by “circling the wagons” and Doug puts it. Far better, in my opinion, to allow questions, and to take the Bible seriously–especially for those conservatives who claim to derive their theology only from the text of Scripture.

Theoretically, I agree with John. I don’t believe that one has to agree with the Chicago statement of inerrancy in order to say that one believes the Bible is inerrant. I also agree that the word “inerrant” is in need of some major redefinition (or perhaps re-education needs to be done of people on what the term really should signify). I would very much like to say that I believe in the doctrine of inerrancy (and do in fact say that, on most days). At the same time I fully understand that my definition of inerrancy is not the same as most evangelical Christians. The problem, then, is not with the word itself, but with the meaning that has been injected into it.

Therefore, practically, I agree with Calvin (my husband, not the reformer!). The term is almost useless for actually communicating what one believes, if one doesn’t believe the standard definition. The majority of conservative evangelical Christians have an assumed definition for the word. If one says, “I believe in the doctrine of inerrancy,” they assume that you hold to their (standard) definition. Claiming to believe in inerrancy while at the same time redefining the word is fine for philosophical or theological discussions among us eggheads (and I say this with the utmost respect!), but it does nothing for communication to people outside that group, unless one explains oneself extensively. And, at least as I see it, the purpose of having a single vocabulary word to describe a concept is so that one doesn’t have to explain oneself extensively every time one uses the word. Like it or not, the word means a certain thing in modern, evangelical circles, and no matter how earnestly we believe that the word should be both retained and redefined (which I do believe, theoretically), that belief has little to no chance of translating itself into practical doctrine for evangelical Christians. It’s far too ingrained into the the evangelical psyche to start a mass effort of recontextualization, at least among laypeople (if any sort of “mass effort” were even possible to achieve in any amount of time that would be helpful to the current culture). Call me a pessimist, but there’s my take on it. I hope sincerely that I will be proven wrong.

Therefore, practically, I avoid using the word when postulating my beliefs about the nature of Scripture. It helps to avoid confusion, because though I’d love to hold on to the word, the redefinition that I and others would like is just not likely to happen on a wide-scale. It’s not just “subject to misunderstanding” (as John put it), it’s completely inevitable that one will be misunderstood if one uses the word in a non-standard way. And, when speaking with regular ol’ people (non-eggheads), I’d prefer not to feel like I’m being deceptive when I use a word that I know perfectly well they won’t view the same way that I do.

Of course, if push came to shove and someone forced me to choose, I would still say I believe in inerrancy (as opposed to my dear husband, who would abandon use of the term for the above reasons) – by my definition, which I would then have to explain at length in order not to be deceitful, therefore starting the debate all over again about the usefulness of the word…

Just call me “sitting-on-the-fence” Mandy.

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.

Wright’s first two reasons had to do with understanding the worldview of the author(s) and understanding one’s own presuppositions, respectively. I agree wholeheartedly with Wright on the subject of being sure to understand where the authors/editors/redactors/what-have-you are coming from. Normally I don’t consider such a task “theology,” though under Wright’s somewhat broad definition it does seem to fit.

Wright appears to define theology, and specifically “Christian theology” as the worldview which Christians hold generally. I don’t have a problem with this per se. In fact, I’d rather like it if Christian theology could stop at the broad strokes that Wright paints. However, it doesn’t–which is why I don’t find Christian theology, and here we might say Christian systematic theology, all that helpful in ascertaining either my own presuppositions or the presuppositions of the authors of the text. To imagine that the authors of the New Testament held anything remotely as developed as our own present day Christian theology is, I think, entirely incorrect. I’m quite sure, based on other things that Wright has written, that he would more or less agree with me on this, though obviously I cannot speak for him.

As to Wright’s third reason–that theology needs Biblical studies, I wholeheartedly agree. However, since theology is completely separated from Biblical studies (how many MTS students do you know who are learning the same number of languages and spending the same amount of time in the text as the Biblical studies majors?) it is, at present, merely wishful thinking. Systematic theology cannot exist without proof-texting. All systematic theologians create a system which seeks equilibrium within itself and, for this reason, is forced to discard much of the Biblical narrative; albeit in a variety of creative ways.

Now, to be fair, I believe that my disagreement with Wright comes down to one of semantics. When he says “theology,” I believe he means the broad strokes of Christian theology (ie, that there is a creator God who is interested in his creation; that human sin/rebellion has somehow hindered that interest; but that this creator God has intervened in creation and provided some type of correction to the world). In some ways, it is as if Wright holds a view of the world that I wish were real, but that simply does not exist in reality. That is to say, “theology” means those broad strokes of Christian faith; in which case I agree with his arguments. However, in reality theology is a very highly developed and specialized field that spends more time studying philosophy than the Bible, and more time reading Barth than Qoheleth.

So, at the end of the day I agree with Wright if we limit ourselves quite severely in our definition of theology. If we do this, than I think that he is correct in saying that Biblical studies and theology need one another, because it would, in this case, help to reveal the presuppositions of the authors as well as the readers (assuming for the moment that those readers consider themselves part of the Christian community). However, if we accept a more broad, and I believe more realistic, definition of theology I believe that Wright’s arguments quickly fall apart and that we are left with theology being more philosophy than Biblical studies, and as such something that is quite helpful in determining current beliefs of certain sects as well as various leanings of theologians, but not so helpful in determining the presuppositions of the authors.

Would that reality might conform to my desires in this case.

As I was reading today I came across a section where Wright discusses Christian Theology as a worldview. As part of this section, he makes the (in my opinion, rather bold) assertion that Biblical studies and theology need one another. Below, I summarize his arguments (which can be found on pp. 137-138 of the aforementioned title) and in a subsequent post I hope to interact with them to a greater or lesser extent.

Wright’s arguments for why theology and Biblical studies need each other:

1. Biblical studies needs theology because the original authors wrote with a theological worldview in mind. In order to understand this worldview, one must be engaged in the theological discussion.

2. Biblical studies needs theology because one needs to be aware of one’s own presuppositions, and this is only possible through a “theological analysis of contemporary culture.”

3. Theology needs Biblical studies since theology must needs interact with the stories of the Bible. This goes doubly for Christian theology which must include the stories of the Bible or risk falling into “ad hoc use of the Bible,” (ie, proof-texting, etc).