End of Evangelicalism (2) Inerrant Bible

The concept of an Inerrant Bible has become one of the core badges of modern evangelism. David Fitch notes that stand appeals to modernist criteria of true and false. Appealing to the world’s standards undermines the authority of the scriptures. Our articulation of the authority ends up being in terms defined by modern science, histiography and the modern academy. We have sought a secure position in the wider world by aligning ourselves with the forces in power. If we hitch our horse to the wagon of their ideology, we will find ourselves going somewhere we do not want to go. Here are some of the implications.

• We sound arrogant; because we claim to have the truth and that others do not.
• Every word in the scriptures is expected to communicate propositional truth.
• It makes us unwilling to listen to the people their world. We miss their questions, so they do not hear us.
• The church is too certain about what we know about God.
• Making a stand for the inerrant bible allows us to believe that we have the truth while not being changed by it.

Fitch is correct to highlight these. He suggests the following response.
Instead of attempting to define the scriptures externally to scripture, we should only hope to know the scripture’s authority in our lives as it is revealed within our inhabitation of God’s mission in the world.

My Response
I have never been that comfortable with the concept of inerrancy.  The following thoughts describe my approach.

• The scriptures were written by people. They used their own vocabulary and style, and they did not realise that they were writing scriptures. They put stuff in that is irrelevant. “Bring the cloak I left at Troas” does not much anything to us.

• According to 2 Tim 3:16, the scriptures are God-breathed (theopneustos). We do not fully know what that means, but I believe that the Holy Spirit got everything into the scriptures that he wanted in. The scriptures contain everything that he wanted to about God and the world.

• When interpreting the scriptures, I am not so worried about understanding the author’s intent. I always want to know what the Holy Spirit intended. I try to read the scriptures listening to him. Reading and listening at the same time are important. (We sometimes need to be in a group to hear clearly).

• The Psalms teach that loving the law leads to wisdom. I find that loving the scriptures leads to insight (we must not worship them). Heavy doubt seems to leads to dister.

• Spurgeon said that you should defend the scriptures the same way that you defend a caged lion. You let it loose.

• All people and all cultures have blind spots. My culture has blinds spots, but I do not know what they are, because I am part of my culture. I have some blind spots that cause me to miss part of what God is saying, or to get some things wrong, but I do not know what they are. It is really hard to escape from our culture and see it as God sees it. They best we can dois to read humbly and be as open as possible to the challenges of the Holy Spirit.

• Reading the scriptures frequently is important. The more we read, the more we will see and hear.

• The Holy Spirit chose to use verbal revelation. He could have given us twenty pictures, but he did not. He could have waited until the modern age, and given us a movie or an audio-visual, but he did not. The Holy Spirit chose to use words, so words are important. This means that we need to listen to the words carefully, but in the context of the whole message.

• The scriptures should be read as they are written. The epistles are more propositional than other parts of the scriptures. The gospels describe events, and record statements. Much of the Old Testament describes events, although the law is much more propositional.

• Propositional writing is a clear precise way to communicate. Communicating in this way is fine, as long as we understand the limitations.

The End of Evangelicalism? Discerning a New Faithfulness for Mission