Should an inerrant Bible be the very foundation of Christianity?

Eric Reitan, a progressive Christian philosopher (having written an excellent book on the New Atheism and one defending universal salvation) gave several arguments against the central place of the Bible for our faith.

 

How Does God Reveal? Five Christian Reasons to Doubt Biblical Inerrancy

 
The Patheos website is currently hosting a multi-blog conversation about progressive Christianity and Scripture which has generated numerous engaging and thoughtful contributions–such as this one by James McGrath. Because the relationship between progressive Christian faith and the Bible is one of my enduring interests, the sudden flood of interesting essays on the topic has inspired me to take a few minutes to reflect on the issue myself. 

As a philosopher of religion, the way I approach this topic is in terms of a philosophical question: What theory of revelation fits best with the Christian view of God? Put another way, if there is a God that fits the broadly Christian description, how would we expect such a God to reveal the divine nature and will to the world?

Many conservative Christians take it for granted that God has revealed the divine nature and will in and through a specific book. More precisely (although they aren’t usually this precise), they believe that God inspired certain human authors at various times in history to write texts that inerrantly express divine truths–and then inspired other human beings to correctly recognize these texts and include all and only them in the comprehensive collection of Scriptures we call the Bible.

Let’s call this the theory of biblical inerrancy.

Does this theory fit well with broader Christian beliefs? Is this a good Christian theory about divine revelation, culminating in a good Christian theory about what the Bible is and what sort of authority we should attach to it? I think there are a number of reasons to be skeptical.

Put more narrowly, I think there are a number of reasons why Christians should be skeptical, given their Christian starting points. Let’s consider at least some of these reasons.

1. Christianity holds that Jesus is the ultimate revelation of God

Traditional Christian teaching holds that Jesus is the Word made Flesh, the incarnation of God in history. And this means that for Christians, the primary and monumental revelation of God is in the person of Jesus, not in any book (however inspired). It is this fact which motivated George MacDonald to say of the Bible,

It nowhere lays claim to be regarded as the Word, the Way, the Truth. The Bible leads us to Jesus, the inexhaustible, the ever unfolding Revelation of God. It is Christ “in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge,” not the Bible, save as leading to him.

Biblical inerrantists might argue that nothing precludes God from both revealing the divine nature primarily in Jesus and authoring an inerrant book as a secondary revelation. This is true as far as it goes. But there are reasons for concern.

First, there’s a difference between the kind of revelation that Jesus represents, and the kind that a book represents. A person and a book are different things, and we learn from them in different ways. Consider the difference between having a mentor in the project of becoming a better person, and reading self-help books.

Doesn’t Christianity teach that God’s preferred way of disclosing the divine nature and will is through personal, living relationship rather than fixed words? The problem with throwing in an inerrant book as a “supplemental” revelation is that it can lead to Bible-worship. Given human psychology, there is something alluring about having a book with all the answers. But if God primarily wants us to find the answers through personal engagement with the living God, as discovered in Jesus, isn’t there a real danger that fixation on the Bible will distract the faithful from God’s primary mode of self-disclosure?

None of this is to say that human stories–witness accounts of divine revelation in history–aren’t important. They can motivate a desire to seek out the one whom the stories are about, and they can offer tools for discerning whether you’ve found the one you seek or an imposter. But once they are seen as secondary, as valuable as a means to an end, the need for inerrancy dissipates. If what really matters is my friendship with Joe, and if I sought out and formed a friendship with him because lots of people told me stories about him that revealed him as an awesome guy I wanted to meet, do I really need to insist that those storytellers were inerrant? Why?

2. The Jesus of Scripture was not an inerrantist

In John 8:1-11, we have the story of the teachers of the law coming to Jesus with an adulteress, and asking Him whether they ought to stone her to death as the Scriptures prescribe. The passage itself declares that this was a trap: If Jesus came out and directly told them not to stone her, He would be defying a direct scriptural injunction.

He avoided the trap: He didn’t directly telling them to act contrary to Scripture. Instead, He told them that the one without sin should cast the first stone.

It is a stunning and powerful story (no wonder someone decided to write it into the Gospel of John, even though it didn’t appear in the earliest versions). But notice that Jesus didn’t tell them to do what Scripture prescribed. Instead, He found a powerful way to drive home exactly what was wrong with following that scriptural injunction–in a way that avoided their trap.

In short, Jesus disagreed with some of the teachings in the Scriptures of His day. In the Sermon on the Mount, he offered gentle correctives to earlier teachings–teachings which started in a direction but didn’t go far enough. The lex talionis command to punish evildoers eye for eye and tooth for tooth may, at the time, have served as a restraint on retributive impulses: don’t punish beyond the severity of the crime. But for Jesus, that level of restrain was insufficient. It was a start on a path, perhaps, but only that. Jesus followed the trajectory of that path to its conclusion, and enjoined His listeners to turn the other cheek.

In short, it’s clear Jesus didn’t have the inerrantist view towards the Scriptures of His day that conservative Christians have towards the Christian Scriptures of today. Conservatives might argue that Jesus would view the modern Bible–or maybe just the New Testament?–in the way they favor, even if the approach to Scripture that He actually modeled is at odds with their approach.

Allow me to treat such a speculative claim with suspicion. If Jesus is the primary revelation of God in history, then it strikes me as appropriate to follow His model for approaching Scripture, and respectfully look beyond the letters on the page to the deeper intentions that finite human authors might have missed, noticing trajectories and exploring where they might lead.

3. In the New Testament, Paul distinguished between his views and the Lord’s

 In 1 Corinthians 7:10-12, Paul says the following:

To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife. To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her…

I’ve talked about this passage before, so I won’t go into details. What interests me is the distinction Paul makes between his own views and those of the Lord. In this passage, it’s clear that Paul did not see Himself as taking dictation from God. He made a clear distinction between his own opinions and those of the Lord, and by making the distinction explicit was signaling to his readers that they should treat the injunctions differently–as if he didn’t want to claim for himself the kind of authority that he took to accompany Jesus’ explicit teachings.

But if inerrantism is true, then Paul’s teachings are the inerrant word of God, and so have the same kind of authority as Jesus’ words. In other words, if inerrantism is true, then Paul was wrong to make the distinction he made. But that distinction is made by Paul in a letter that’s in the Bible. And if inerrantism is true, a distinction made in a letter that’s in the Bible has to be accurate. But if it’s accurate, inerrantism isn’t true. Zounds!

An exercise in creative interpretation might offer the inerrantist the wiggle room to escape this logical trap, but inerrantists are routinely skeptical of such creative interpretation of Scripture. At best, then, this amounts to a difficulty for inerrantism, the sort of difficulty one often sees when trying to force a theory onto subject matter that doesn’t quite suit it. Theories can perhaps weather some such difficulties, but if they become too common it is hard to reasonably persist in endorsing the theory.

4. Efforts to overcome apparent contradictions in Scripture lead to a false view of Scripture

Speaking of difficulties of this sort, the Bible isn’t a neat, orderly, systematically consistent treatise. The Gospel narratives, for example, aren’t identical. They tell the stories of Jesus’ life in different ways. Details differ–for example, in accounts of the resurrection. Bart Ehrman does a fine job of cataloguing  many of these in Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible.

Mostly, these tensions aren’t explicit contradictions but rather what might be called apparent ones: they don’t seem as if they can go together, because you’d need to tell a rather convoluted story to make them fit.

Inerrantists have not been remiss in offering such convoluted stories. But if you need to tell enough of them in order to make your theory map onto what it’s supposed to explain, the theory becomes increasingly implausible.

And there’s another problem, one that should be of concern to Christians who care about the Bible. The convoluted tales that you have to tell in order to make disparate biblical narratives fit together end up leading you away from an honest appreciation of the message of the biblical authors. As Ehrman puts it, “To approach the stories in this way is to rob each author of his own integrity as an author and to deprive him of the meaning that he conveys in his story.”

When you do this, you care more about preserving your theory about the Bible than you do about understanding and taking in its message. For me, this is one of the greatest tragedies of an inerrantist approach to Scripture: It makes it difficult for readers to engage with the Bible on its own terms. It’s like someone who is so devoted to a false image of their spouse that they can’t see their spouse for the person they really are. Likewise, the steps that need to be taken in order to preserve the doctrine of inerrancy in the face of the Bible’s actual content means that it becomes impossible to have an intimate relationship with the Bible as it really is. This is not taking the Bible seriously. It is taking the doctrine of inerrancy seriously at the expense of the Bible.  

5. God is love

Christianity teaches that God is love. In fact, it is the closest thing Christians have to a scriptural definition of God:  “Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.” (1 John 4:7-8).

If God is love, then we experience God when we love. If God is love, then the primary way we can encounter God is through loving and being loved–that is, through cultivating loving relationships with persons. This may help to explain the Christian view that a person–Jesus–served in history as God’s fundamental revelation, rather than a book. Books can’t love you. And you can’t love a book in the sense of “love” that Christians (and the author of 1 John) have in mind when we say God is love.

When we feel the profound presence of the divine showering love upon us–or when we feel the joy of being loved by others–we are encountering the divine nature as something coming to us from the outside. But when we love our neighbors as ourselves, we are channeling divine love, and experiencing it “from within” (so to speak). The divine nature is moving within us, more intimately connected to us than any mere object of experience. I think this is what the author of 1 John means when he says that whoever does not love does not know God. To love others is to be filled with the spirit of God. It is to let God in.

If any of that is true, then it is by encouraging us to love one another that God makes possible the most profound revelation of the divine nature and will. And while the Bible does encourage us to love one another, the theory about the Bible which takes it to be the inerrant revelation of God may actually be an impediment to love.

We end up focusing more attention on the Bible than on our neighbors. We are more committed to “doing what the Bible says” than we are to loving those around us. Out of a desire to be connected with God, we insist that homosexuality is always and everywhere sinful–and when the gay and lesbian neighbors we are supposed to love cry out in despair, their lives crushed by these teachings, we stifle our compassion, shutting out love in fear that loving them as ourselves might lead us to question the inerrancy of the Bible.

If God is love, then any theory of revelation that tells us to find God by burying our noses in a book is a problematic theory. If God is love, we must look for God in the love we see in the world. The Bible, understood as a flawed and finite human testament to the God of love working in history, can be a deeply meaningful partner in our quest to encounter God and live in the light of divine goodness. But as soon as it is treated as inerrant, it is in danger of becoming a bludgeon used to silence those neighbors who want to share experiences that don’t quite fit with this or that verse.

The Bible points away from itself. Respect for it demands that we look up from the page and engage with our neighbors and the creation. God is alive in the world. The Bible tells us that God is alive in the world. In so doing, the book is telling us that if we want to find God, we need to look into our neighbor’s face with love, and at the natural world and all its creatures with love.

Because God is there. God is there, revealing Himself in the vibrancy of life and the child’s laugh and the mother’s tender kiss. God is there, in the gay man who sits by his longtime partner’s hospital bedside, gently stroking his brow. God is there, in the joyous wedding vows of the lesbian couple that can finally get a legal marriage after years together.

And any time a too-literal allegiance to the letter of the biblical text causes someone not to see the face of God in that tenderness and joy, the doctrine of biblical inerrancy has blocked divine revelation, impeding God’s effort to self-disclose to the world.

 

 

Here follows my own response.

 

Dear Eric,

it would be a terrible understatement to say that this post of yours was extraordinarily amazing 🙂

Here is a major problem for the Conservative Protestant position: it cannot merely be that their Bible is inerrant, but also that people who first recognized it that way were as well. If they weren’t, what give us the guarantee that their decision was correct?

Therefore, I view the doctrine of Solo Scriptura as rationally extremely problematic.


I also agree that God’s revelation was the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth and that it is not propositional knowledge, even if it logically entails affirming certain truths.

I think that Biblical inerrancy is IMPOSSIBLE in the first place, due to the presence of many conflicting voices in the collection of books having been gathered under that name.

Therefore, ironically enough, inerrantists themselves have constantly to pick and choose which texts they take at face values and which they necessarily have to distort because they contradict the former.

The real danger here is that according to the doctrine of inerrancy, if you find some Biblical verses describing God as commanding moral atrocities, you HAVE to conclude that the God experienced by ALL other Biblical writers endorsed them as well.

Tragically, nasty fundamentalists considerably water down Christ’s call to love our enemies to make it match the theology of the imprecatory psalms.

And many of them will give up Christianity altogether, become bitter anti-atheists while keeping the same fundamentalistic mindset.
So a New Atheist recently wrote he wants to burn the whole Bible because of the presence of atrocities within it, ignoring the obvious fact there are many other Biblical authors who did not approve at all of them.

As you expressed it so well, the priority of Conservative Evangelicals is NOT to become more loving persons and turn the world into a better place BUT to combat heresies and frenetically defend particular verses having been empirically refuted.

This explains rather well why they’re so obsessed with homosexuality while utterly ignoring (or even upholding) crying social inequalities.
I have come to see books within the Biblical Canon in the same way I view other Jewish and Christian books, and offered a parallel between C.S. Lewis and the apostle Paul writing down their experiences with God.

I think that the basis of a progressive Christian theology should be the idea that as a perfect being, God has necessarily to be much more loving and just than any (purely) human being could ever be.

Thus, if your theology teaches that God predetermined countless babies to grow up for being damned and eternally suffer, you’ve made a reductio-ad absurdum of it.

I think you’re an incredibly bright person and defender of our faith, and I wish much more people would read your writings instead of those of William Lane Craig.
His evil view of God is one of the main reasons why Conservative Evangelicalism is increasingly collapsing.
https://lotharlorraine.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/armenian-genocide-02-jpg.jpeg
Keep the good work!

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Christmas story / Wiehnachtsgeschicht / Conte de Noel

Das isch e Wihnachtsgeschicht, wu uff Hochdäitsch, Fronzesch un Englisch geschrieb wor isch.

C’est un conte de Noel écrit en Allemand, Français et Anglais.

This is a Christmas tale written in German, French and English (respectively).

‘s passiert im Mittelalter in Lothringen, miena liewe Heimat.

Cela ce déroule en Lorraine, ma terre natale bien aimée.

It takes place in Lorraine, my beloved homeland.

Bild

Seid Still Kinner, denn ‘s beginnt nun.

Soyez silencieux les enfants parce que ça commence juste maintenant.

Be still children for it begins  now.

Bild

Das Zwielicht war schon lang vorüber, als Friedrich das Schloss von Lemberg verliess.

Le crépuscule était déjà longtemps passé lorsque Frédéric quitta le château de Lemberg.

The twilight had been already long over as Frederic left the Castle of Lemberg.

Er wurde wirklich entzückt, nachdem er die majestätische winterliche Landschaft sah.
Il fut vraiment ravi après avoir vue le majestueux paysage hivernal.

He was truly delighted after having seen the majestic wintry landscape.

Der Schnee, der ständig vom Himmel herabfiel, wirbelte um ihn herum.

La neige qui tombait constamment du ciel tourbillonnait autour de lui.

The snow which constantly fell from the sky was swirling around him.

Herr Ludwig war mit seinen Verhandlungen mit dem Graf von Toul am meisten zufrieden gewesen.

Le seigneur Louis était majoritairement satisfait de ses négociations avec le comte de Toul.

Lord Lewis had been mostly satisfied by the result of his negotiations with the count of Toul.

Letztendlich hatte er akzeptiert, seine beeindruckende Armee als Hilfe zu senden, um den Gruppen von Ganoven entgegenzutreten, die die isolierten Dörfer der Vosgesen plünderten.

Il avait finalement accepte d’envoyer son imposante armée pour aider a contrer les bandes de brigands qui pillaient les villages isolés des Vosges.
At the end of the day, he had accepted to send his imposing army in order to help counter the groups of outlaws which were plundering isolated villages of the Vosges.

Das war keine leichte Aufgabe gewesen und Friedrich hatte den Willen des Bischofs von Metz erwähnen müssen, der die größte religiöse Autorität im ganzen Lothringen war, um dies hinzubekommen.

Ce n’était point une tache facile et Frédéric a dû mentionner l’évêque de Metz, qui était la plus grande autorité religieuse dans toute la Lorraine, pour obtenir ceci.

This had been no easy task and Frederic had to mention the will of the bishop of Metz, the greatest religious authority in the whole Lorraine, to finally obtain this.

Er wusste, dass mit regelmäßig durch die Gegend patrouillierenden Soldaten die Räuber und Diebe sich es gut überlegen würden, bevor sie ihre feigen Missetaten wiederholen würden.

Il savait qu’avec les soldats qui patrouilleront régulièrement dans la région, les pilleurs et voleurs réfléchiront a deux fois avant de répéter les même méfaits couards.

He knew that with regular soldiers patrolling around the land, the robbers and thieves would think twice before committing again their coward misdeeds.

Er kehrte nun nach Schorbach zurück, wo seine liebe Mathilde vor einem guten Holzfeuer auf ihn wartete.

Il retournait a Schorbach ou sa bien-aimée Mathilde l’attendait devant un bon feu de bois.

He was now heading back to Schorbach where his beloved Mathilde was waiting for him in front of a good wood fire.

Er war ungeduldig, endlich anzukommen und sie wiederzusehen, denn er war während eines ganzen Monats abwesend gewesen.

Il était impatient d’arriver enfin et de la revoir car il avait été absent durant un mois entier.
He was impatient to arrive at last and see her again for he had been absent for an entire month.

Sie werden freudevoll das Kommen des Erretters der ganzen Schöpfung zu dieser Welt zelebrieren.

Il celebreront plein de joie la venue dans ce monde du Sauveur de la creation entiere.

They would joyfully celebrate the coming of the Saviour of the whole creation into the world.

Er konnte sich nicht die Freude vorstellen, ihren Schoss zu streicheln, wo ihr Kind hauste.

Il ne pouvait pas s’imaginer sa joie de câliner son ventre ou leur enfant habitait.

He could not imagine the joy of embracing her and stroking her womb where their child was dwelling.

Wenn sie mit einem Mädchen gesegnet wären, würden sie sie Bertrude nennen. Wenn sie mit einem Knaben gesegnet wären, würden sie ihn Lothar nennen, nach dem großen König, der Lothringen gegründet hatte, das nachher “Lorraine” genannt worden war.

Si ils étaient bénis avec une fille, il l’appelleraient Bertrude. Si il étaient bénis avec un garçon, il l’appelleraient Lothaire, d’après le grand roi qui fondit la Lotharingie qui fut après appelée la Lorraine.

If they were blessed with a girl, they would call her Bertthrude. If they were blessed with a boy, they would call him Lothar, after the great king who had founded Lotharingie which was later called “Lorraine”.

Der rote Himmel war so hell, dass sogar der dunkle Wald von Nadelbäumen, durch den er ging beleuchtet war.

Le ciel rouge était si clair qu’il pouvait même voir le sombre bois de conifères a travers lequel il marchait.

The red sky was so bright that it even illuminated the dark forest of conifers he was going through.

Bild

Er schritt mit einer konstanten Geschwindigkeit, als er die Höhle des Christkinds sah und sich entschloss, für eine Minute an diesem Ort zu verweilen.

Il marchait avec une allure constante lorsqu’il vit la grotte de l’enfant Jesus et décida d’y faire une halte pour une minute.

He was walking at a constant pace as he saw the cave of the Christ child and decided to halt for a minute at this place.

Er beugte sich nieder vor der Statue der gesegneten Jungfrau Maria, die den Säugling Jesus auf ihren Armen trug.

Il se mit a genoux devant la statue de la bénie vierge Marie qui portait le bébé Jésus dans ces bras.

He bowed down before the statue of the blessed virgin Mary holding the baby Jesus in her arms.

Er schauderte,  als er Schritte hörte, die sich ihm näherten.

Il sursauta lorsqu’il entendit des pas s’approcher.

He shuddered as he heard footsteps closing in on him.

Er hatte kaum die Zeit, sein Schwert aus seiner Scheide herauszuholen, bevor er die unbekannte Bedrohung ins Auge schauen musste.

Il eut a peine le temps de sortir son épée de son étui avant de faire face a la menace inconnue.

He had barely the time to take the sword out of his sheath for facing the unknown threat.

Das Blut in seinen Adern gefror, als er das Gesicht von Arnold erkannte, dem Chef der Verbrecherbande von Räubern, die hilflose Dörfer im Bitscherland plünderte.

Son sang gela lorsqu’il reconnut le visage d’Arnaud, le chef de la bande de brigands qui pillaient les villages sans défenses du Bitscherland.

His blood ran cold as he recognised the face of Arnold, the chief of the gang of robbers plundering helpless villages in the Bitscherland.

Er war von zwei seiner Untertanen umgegeben, die so aussahen, als ob sie genauso furchterregende Krieger wären.

Il était entoure par deux de ces acolytes qui semblaient également être des guerriers redoutables.

He was surrounded by two of his underlings who seemed to be formidable warriors in their own rights.

“Hast du dein Ziel erreicht, du Versager? Diese Nacht wirst du deine Seele deinem Verdammten Heiland zurückgeben!” rief er mit einer bösartigen Stimme.

“Est-ce que tu as atteint ton but, perdant? Cette nuit tu rendras ton âme a ton putain de sauveur!” cria t-il avec une voie malicieuse.

“Have you reached your goal, loser? This night, you will give back your soul to your damned saviour!” he shouted in a malicious voice.

Traurig über die Tatsache, dass sein Kind vaterlos wachsen würde, betete er für seine kleine Familie, bevor er sein Schwert schwang.

Abattu a la pensée que son fils grandira son père, il pria pour sa petite famille avant de manier son épée.
Saddened by the fact that his child would grow without a father, he prayed for his small family before swinging his blade.

Er konnte seinen Augen nicht glauben, als er Arnold und die zwei Diebe sah, die ihre Waffen auf den Boden warfen, und dann weinten.

Il ne put croire ses yeux, lorsqu’il vit Arnaud et les deux brigands qui jetèrent leurs armes sur le sol avant d’éclater en sanglot.
He could not believe his eyes as he saw Arnold and the two thieves dropping their weapons before weeping.

“Herr vergib uns!” schrien sie mit der selben Stimme.
“Seigneur, pardonne nous” ils crièrent avec la même voix.

“Lord, forgive us!” they screamed in the same voice.

Er konnte der Versuchung nicht widerstehen, sich umzudrehen.

Il ne put résister la tentation de tourner son dos.
He could not withstand the temptation to turn his back.

Er wurde von dem entzückt, was er sah.

Il fut ravis par ce qu’il vit.

He was ravished by what he saw. 

Die Statue der lächelnden Jungfrau war von zahllosen Glühwürmchen umgegeben.

La statue de la vierge souriante était entourée par un très grand nombre de lucioles.

The statue of the smiling virgin was surrounded by countless glowworms.

Er wusste, dass es kein blosser Zufall war.

Il savait que ce n’était pas une pure coïncidence.

He knew this was not a mere coincidence.

BildDenn der Weihnachtsgeist war hier und hatte diesen Ort und ihre Herzen erobert.

Car l’esprit de noël était ici et avait conquis ces lieux et leurs cœurs.

For the spirit of Christmas was here and had conquered this place and their hearts.