A few thoughts on inerrancy...

Recently I have overheard a few conversations about biblical inerrancy. I want to jump into the middle of the conversation and mix things up a bit because I hear the same things over and over and I don't think much of it has any substance.

First of all, inerrancy is a relatively new concept. Even Paul, when he is writing to Timothy, doesn't use the concept of inerrancy to describe the Scriptures:

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (1 Timothy 3:16-17)

Useful? That word is scary because it isn't as water-tight as 'inerrant'. Useful might mean that I might actualy have to use my mind. Useful might mean that I might need to rely on wisdom for help.

I believe that scripture is absolutely trustworthy in revealing to us who God is, who we are, and the reality of the world. If I used inerrancy from here on out, that is what I mean by it.

Here is what I want to say to these very common objections:

"I don't believe that God whispered in someone's ear and they wrote it all down."

Good for you and you'll be glad to know that most people don't either--especially those who take biblical inerrancy seriously. No one supposes that the Holy Spirit dictated the words we now read in the Bible. The idea is that the biblical writers were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write what they did. The Spirit revealed the truth to them and they were moved to write what they had been revealed. But it was very much written by men, inspired by the Spirit. You might even say guided by the Spirit, but then again we don't want to go thinking that God actually is moving and working in this world [sarcasm]....Brueggemann's Prophetic Imagination is important for understanding this idea.

"I think that a lot of it is metaphorical."

Again, good job. Here is the problem though: You are drawing a line in the sand between 'truth' and 'not-truth' which is a good start. But under the 'truth' side you write 'fact' and under the 'not-truth' side you write 'fiction' and under 'fiction' you write 'metaphor'. You need to fix your premise. Something can be True (with a capital T) and not be a fact. Do you think that Jesus' parables were factual? Do you think he actually intended people to think he was telling them a 'true' story? Of course not. But he absolutely intended to tell them a True story about who God was and is. So even Jesus would say that much of what is True is metaphorical.

Along with this, the intention of the writers is important. Much of the writers never wanted anyone to think what they were writing was factually true. They actually didn't really care. That is a modern, post-enlightenment mindset. They were writing this in pre-modern, pre-enlightenment times and weren't concerned with facts the way we are today. But they were probably more concerned with Truth than we are today--and what they wrote is True.

"I think that other things besides the bible, like the writings of saints, are just as valid as the bible."

Remember where the saints get their inspiration. From the writings of the Saints that I've read, they actually point to holy scripture more than anything else (St. Augustine, St. Francis de Sales, Mother Teresa, Thomas a Kempis). The point here is that what the Saints wrote needs to be judged somehow. In fact, what Donald Miller writes needs to be tested somehow. The way we are to judge whether something someone writes is true or not (remember our categories here) is to test it with Scripture.

"There are so many contradictions in the Bible."

Really? Where? You mean how the Gospels don't exactly match? Well, since the beginning of the era when people titled these stories, they have always been named "The Gospel According to..." They are the collective stories of Jesus' ministry as told by a certain person with a message for a certain group of people (Think of why Matthew is so concerned with the fulfillment of prophecy, or why John focuses his stories around speech-acts). Think of how when you tell stories with your friends around and someone always chimes in with a different perspective or a detail that you didn't notice. Together they paint a pretty good picture of Jesus which is why we need all of them. If you're worried about factual truth, one difference could shake up your whole foundation. But if you can let go and try to see something bigger happening, a difference in the order of a story or a few words here and there don't seem to matter as much, and actually add to the value of the story.

That's all I got, and who knows if it holds any weight...

Good reading:

How Can Scripture Be Authoritative? (Article) - NT Wright

The Last Word: Beyond the Bible Wars to a New Understanding of the Authority of Scripture (Book) - NT Wright

Struggling With Scripture - Walter Brueggemann