Since my husband decided to bring my name up in the inerrancy issue, I thought I’d put my two cents in, for what it’s worth. First I’d like to say upfront, as Calvin did, that I have nothing but respect for those who disagree with my handling of the issue, and harbor no ill feelings or resentment toward an alternative viewpoint, so long as we’re continuing open and honest discussion.
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.