 |
|
|
|||||||
|
The Heresy of Inerrancy (Part 1)The term, "inerrancy" is no longer helpful--even though some scholars, laypersons and clergy insist that this is the "hill on which to die."I have a pastor friend who insists that biblical inerrancy is the only "faithful" position to take in regard to the Bible. Not long ago he preached about the mustard seed and I pressed him to clarify Jesus' statement that the mustard seed is the smallest of seeds. Scientifically, this is a false statement. Other seeds are known to be anatomically smaller than the mustard seed (actually epiphytic orchids of the tropical rain forest produce the world's smallest seeds, weighing only 35 millionths of an ounce). I asked my friend to explain this to me and he told me that it is not a false statement because Jesus' audience would not have known about Brazilian orchids. The point of this statement is to use everyday language of the people in order to help them understand the nature of God's rule. I wholeheartedly agree. The point is not biological, but theological. Follow my logic. If a) Jesus is God and b) God created the world and c) Jesus makes a statement that contradicts the created order, we are left with three options. 1) Concluding that Jesus is not fully God; 2) Concluding that Jesus is one with God and is knowledgeable about creation but was merely confused; or 3) Jesus Christ is more concerned with communicating something profound about God's rule than he is about agricultural veracity. It seems that we need to abandon the term "inerrancy" for the dogmatism and bifurcation it creates. Essentially, its use forces believers who share a similar view of the inspiration of Scripture into conflict over semantics (case in point). What not call it what it really is... a logical fallacy designed to be a crutch for people who can't fathom mystery. What do you think? posted by Jake at 11/30/2004 12:55:00 PM  
7 Comments: |
Friends w/ Blogs
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 My Reading Queue 
 
 
 
 Just Finished 
 
 
 The Looooong List 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Previous Posts Calvin, the CPE supervisor? ------------ Jake's Movie Reviews ------------ Just in time for the holidays... ------------ "Yet hope remains..." ------------ On the Virtues of Blogging ------------ Archives November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007
|
yeah..good stuff here..as you know, i used to be on the whole inerrancy side...and to be fair, lets also admit that there are different levels of inerrancy. However, I agree with your thoughts..on a more pratical level, for me believing in inerrancy was like standing at a dam. All we seem to do our whole lives was to plug holes that other people would point out in the text. Pretty boring engagement with scripture...
I think its interesting that some recent homiletics, such as Anna Carter-Florence here at CTS, have began to talk about preaching against the text at times. Interesting and def impossible under a system of inerrancy.
But now we must move..how do we engage those who hold to this doctrine? They are sincere and certainly "love God" just as much as we do. We must continue to leave them a place at the table even though they may not want to be there and may not invite us to theirs. We must continue to ask, "What can we learn from them?" And I mean better answers than just "how not to be." They are still our brothers and sisters and their thoughts are valid. (ala Bosch)
For me, it was engaging the text itself. Perhaps in dialouge with them, we talk less about inerrancy and more about the text. We can both agree on the centrality of the text (for the most part.) A great starting point I believe...
mark
I don’t think that what is being advocated is that the interpreter should stand above the text and attempt to discern what is or is not beneficial. The trouble with inerrancy is not that it makes us captive to the text, for any number of hermeneutic tricks can get one around most uncomfortable “inerrantist” inspired problems. In my view, the trouble with inerrancy is that it attempts to provide an evidentialist proof for the veracity or “trustworthiness” of the text. Rather than express real faith in the text, inerrantists have devised a way that they believe meets all the scientific and rational criteria for proof. Having based their acceptance of Xianity on this point, they defend it with gusto, for to loose this would remove the grounding of their “faith”. In this sense, the inerrantist interpreter might be said to be existentially bound by the text, but this is a binding that does not have to do with hearing the text, but with defending the text.
However, what we need is to be bound to hearing the text. When we set inerrancy aside, what we are setting aside is the need to defend every little bit against historical analysis. We may still even be able to defend much of it successfully, but that is not our goal as interpreters because we accept the text on faith. Therefore, we are free to listen to the text to try and discern what it is saying – in its original context, throughout history, and today. Jettisoning inerrancy, for me, is to remove an annoying hindrance to truly hearing the text.
For myself, this does not entail giving up the trustworthiness of the text, for how am I able to accept the text as a rule for faith and life if I have not been convinced that it is worthy of that trust. What I give up is the psychological need to defend it (and my own soul) so vigorously against science.
(wtravismcmaken.blogspot.com)
Though I would not argue for Biblical inerrancy, the more I read millinerd the more I wonder whether other writings deserve to be so described.
I think Eric has a helpful point, and I agree that the inerrancy question is a product of the "modern" mindset. The Bible is not allowed to be a set of documents that encapsulates the apostolic faith, but rather "Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth": something more like the instruction manual to your iPod than anything Christians have thought for the the first several hundred years since Pentecost.
Wow, there's some good stuff here. I totally agree with Melissa--the Bible never mentions inerrancy. Mark, I love your "dam" analogy. Do I need to footnote you on that one? Eric, good point. I wanted to keep the post more simple than your mind would like. I agree with your comment and think much more could be said about problems raised by cultural interpretations, semiotics and the myth of obtaining authorial intent in a totalizing fashion. Travis, good point. I would like to go even farther and will discuss this in another post. I think we should not only "be bound to our hearing of the text" but also to the other's hearing of the text as well. Even though my good Baptist proclivities want to suggest that we can all "hear" for ourselves, I think that for Truth to be approached, we need to "hear" with not only our ears but the ears of the other. I disagree with Kyle. It seems far too reductionistic to equate the Bible to directions for your iPod Much to the contrary, if we read the Bible that way we will end up in the same position as fundamentalists who insist on inerrancy--reading it literally. God, and by extension that which God has inspired, transends such simplistic explanations as "Basic Instruction Before Leaving Earth!"
It's not that I don't want to be "bound" to the text. Those who know me are aware that I have a high view of Scripture. I am merely suggesting that the term "inerrant" is not a helpful qualifier for the Bible. I don't follow your logic, Anastasia. Neither I nor most of those who have commented on this post are suggesting that we reject the bible. You seem to be forcing a dialectic that appears reductionistic and unfounded. Some of us do not appreciate the qualifier "inerrant" placed upon Scripture because it forces a fallacious hermeneutic upon the text. What we are advocating is to read Scripture for what it is. Or better, to not read it as so many fundamentalists insist that it must be read--as an unequivocal authority on all matters of history, science, etc. The text does not claim that about itself and I am rejecting the notion that we force one hermeneutic upon the text that is so inextricably entwined with the failed enlightenment project's view of Truth. This not only harms the text but it also rejects other hermeneutics that differ from a fundamentalist reading of the text (not to mention the interpretations of marginalized groups). To those who would press for such a dogmatic exclusivism, I quote Paul..."let them be anathema!" We can be dogmatic about that.
Forgive me for taking three weeks to look at the post again, but to clarify...! I was *criticizing* the inerrancy stance as one that treats the NT as instructions to an iPod (bad!) instead of a set of documents that testifies to the apostolic faith (good!)