This is the short version

Growing up in a non-denominational Evangelical home, I rather unconsciously developed a belief in the importance of biblical inerrancy. What this meant for me was that everything in the Bible was true, and that there were no contradictions between different parts of the Bible. Why was this important? The standard answer I received was, “If all of it isn’t true, then we can just pick and choose which parts we want to believe. And that leads to relativism.” Relativism was the opposite of Absolute Truth—it meant you didn’t really believe anything, except that no one should tell anyone else what to believe. Relativism, I learned, could be easily refuted by asking the hypothetical relativist how he knew he didn’t know anything. This would clearly show him that he was claiming to know something by claiming not to know anything. I, on the other hand, could rest comfortably in the Absolute Truth I had gleaned from my inerrant NASB Bible.

I say all this because parts of my early understanding of scripture and Christianity now seem somewhat misguided to me. In fact, painting with a broad brush, we might say I had inherited a faith combined with two elements of the philosophy of Descartes: the need for certainty and the need for a foundation. I think these philosophical assumptions—rather than the authority of scripture and orthodox Christian belief—led to a very strong emphasis on inerrancy, which perhaps served as a distraction to me. Let me explain.

Descartes wanted to construct all of his beliefs on a certain, un-doubtable foundation so that he could know for sure that his beliefs were correct. He ended up deciding that the only thing he could not doubt was that he himself existed; from this un-doubtable foundation, Descartes hoped to build the rest of his knowledge. Evangelical Christians have essentially substituted Descartes’ belief in his own existence with belief in the inerrancy of scripture. We now try to construct a theological building of knowledge on the foundation of inerrant scripture. What Descartes and Evangelicals should realize, however, is that between absolute certainty and relativism, there is a spectrum in which we have varying degrees of certainty. Further, though we shouldn’t give up all hope in discovering truth, scripture never promised us Absolute Truth or Absolute Certainty. Rather, Paul emphasized faith over sight. Faith is the certainty of things not seen, but this is not the sort of certainty Descartes wanted, which never allows for doubt or ambiguity.

Regardless of whether inerrancy is a Christian doctrine or a philosophical reaction, I think it can serve as a distraction from other aspects of scripture which may be more important. Emphasizing inerrancy as the most important characteristic of the Bible seems to miss the point, sort of like talking about chemical processes misses the point of love. There is a certain truth and importance to the physiological aspect of love, but for anyone who believes there is something more than a material world, this aspect is not only of secondary importance, but probably not even worth mentioning in most contexts. Likewise, biblical inerrancy does have a place in certain discourses concerned with finding a proper starting point or foundation for knowledge. But as far as following Christ daily as a disciple, as far as understanding the truth of scripture itself, inerrancy is about as helpful as stoichiometry for getting a date.

Instead, we should approach scripture as something to be lived out, not as a certain and inerrant foundation for knowledge. If we get overly concerned with establishing the inerrancy of scripture, we may not get around to focusing on its message. Scripture reveals to us who God is and how we can enter into relationship with him through Christ; scripture is the ultimate and final authority for Christians because it is the Word of God. If we are too concerned about the minutiae of inerrancy, we may well turn scripture from the Word of God into a philosophical starting point.

Acknowledging scripture’s authority while not emphasizing its inerrancy might seem a way of weakening or watering down Christianity. But this shift in focus allows us to focus on what Christianity is really about rather than worrying about whether the Gospels contain mutually exclusive accounts of the same events. Again, showing the historical accuracy and internal consistency of scripture is important in the right context, but as with chemical processes and relationships between people, it generally is not the main point. Scripture is primarily a means of pointing us to God and to relationship with him. Unless scripture accomplishes this goal, it is of no value to us, no matter how errant or inerrant it might be.

And now for something way too long

Beyond Errancy and Inerrancy: Letting Scripture Speak For Itself

Some of my most significant developments intellectually at Wheaton began during my freshman year. I grew up in churches and other Christian circles which, though full of sincere and committed Christians, were perhaps lacking in historical or intellectual perspective on what it means to be a Christian. I don’t say this to demean the Christianity I grew up with, but to indicate that there was much potential for my vision of what it means to be a Christian to expand. And this is exactly what happened. There were a number of factors which shaped these changes, but they centered in many ways on scripture and on the church, the authority of each, and how they relate to each other. This paper is essentially the story of some of these intellectual developments and a few of the thinkers who influenced me, especially as they relate to the view of scripture’s authority called Inerrancy.

Inerrancy as a Doctrine and Inerrancy as a Discourse

I grew up with what I understand to be a fairly typical Evangelical, low church, non-denominational position on the Bible. Though Inerrancy was never a particularly big topic in my family, it was generally assumed in our home and church. In as much as Inerrancy is simply a doctrine which says that the Bible is true or authoritative, it doesn’t seem there is anything wrong with it. But it does seem that there are a host of other assumptions and positions implicit in the doctrine with which I have since become uncomfortable. In other words, Inerrancy is part of a larger discourse and cannot simply be taken as an affirmation of the truth or authority of the Bible.

This brings us to our first major thinker: Michel Foucault. Foucault was a twentieth century French intellectual (can anything good come from France? you might ask) who, among many other things, writes about what it means to be an author. For Foucault, an author is not only someone who produces a single text. One could also be the author of “a theory, tradition, or discipline in which other books and authors will in their turn find a place...[These authors] are unique in that they are not just the authors of their own works. They have produced something else: the possibilities and the rules for the formation of other texts.” Foucalt called such authors “founders of discursivity.” When a discourse is founded, e.g., socialism by Marx or psychoanalysis by Freud, it has become possible not only to think in new ways but to disagree in new ways. Since Marx, we are now able not only to become Communists, but also able to become anti-Communists; before Marx, neither were possibilities.
I want to suggest here that Inerrancy when referring to the Bible is not merely a doctrine which can become more or less accurate depending on how it is defined, but an entire discourse which makes possible certain ways of thinking and which also limits thought. This is a big statement, and there is not space here to fully substantiate it. But in my experience growing up immersed in Evangelical schools, culture, textbooks, summer camps, youth groups, and churches, I was learning to operate within a certain discourse, in which the Bible was either errant or inerrant. But this discourse may have failed to account for all the possibilities, or may have concealed some ways of talking about scripture which are more appropriate to the way it talks about itself.

What Is Inerrancy?

Though Inerrancy is generally understood to be the belief that the Bible is true in all that it affirms, to understand Inerrancy fully it is also important to look at how it developed as a discourse. One of the most formative influences on the discourse of Inerrancy was the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy. ICBI existed from 1977 to 1987 for the purpose of promoting and publishing on the doctrine of Inerrancy, and in 1978 the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy was published and signed by hundreds of prominent Evangelical scholars and pastors. A second statement on Biblical Hermeneutics was published in 1982, and a third on Biblical application in 1986. Though Inerrancy could be traced to earlier thinkers in the 19th century, the ICBI and Chicago Statements were galvanizing events in the “discursive” history of Inerrancy and resulted in large amounts of related literature and discussion.

Especially relevant to this paper is the view of truth these documents articulate, because to establish that the Bible is true one must have some idea of what truth is. Article VI of the statement on Biblical Hermeneutics says: “WE AFFIRM that the Bible expresses God’s truth in propositional statements, and we declare that biblical truth is both objective and absolute. We further affirm that a statement is true if it represents matters as they actually are, but is an error if it misrepresents the facts.” Norman Geisler explains this affirmation in his commentary on the statement: “First, in contrast to contemporary relativism it is declared that truth is absolute. Second, as opposed to subjectivism it is acknowledged that truth is objective. Finally, in opposition to existential and pragmatic views of truth, this article affirms that truth is what corresponds to reality.” We discover here a philosophical outlook which understands truth as Absolute and believes that humans can objectively discover this truth and the reality to which it corresponds; this truth is communicated through propositions, which are either truth or false. The Bible is inerrant, then, because it contains nothing but such Absolute and objective truth. In other words, this truth does not depend on people’s opinions (which would mean it was subjective instead of objective) nor does it ever change (which would mean it was relative instead of Absolute).

Why is there such an emphasis here on objectivity and Absolute Truth when speaking of scripture’s authority? The answer seems to be fear of relativism. Francis Schaeffer, a prominent signer of the Chicago Statements, considers especially dangerous the view of truth which he calls “existential methodology.” For Schaeffer, this methodology allows room for parts of the Bible to be inaccurate while maintaining that the general message or content of the Bible is still communicated. But for Schaeffer and others concerned about holding strictly to the Bible’s Inerrancy, as soon as any single part of the Bible is seen as inaccurate, all other parts can in theory be questioned as well, and eventually will be questioned. This will lead to a biblical text which is no longer normative for Christians but only relative to some higher authority such as culture or philosophy. Geisler explains that if we cease “to maintain the total truth of the Bible...[then] the Bible which God gave loses its authority, and what has authority instead is a Bible reduced in content according to the demands of one’s critical reasonings and in principle reducible still further once one has started.” Though these concerns are certainly legitimate, however, there is an opposite danger into which the “Inerrantists” may have fallen. This possible danger brings us to our second thinker, Martin Heidegger.

The God of the Philosophers and the Bible of the Inerrantists

I first encountered Heidegger during the fall of my sophomore year, and I think I’m only now beginning to understand some of what he said. Heidegger was another 20th century scholar, this time from Germany (perhaps a locale equally questionable as France) and belonging to the school of philosophy known as “phenomenology.” For our purposes here, Heidegger’s critique of onto-theology is relevant. On a basic level, onto-theology means talking (logy) about God (theo-logy) in terms of Being (onto-theo-logy). For Heidegger, the history of Western philosophy is the story of how God came to be thought of as the Supreme Being from whom all other beings derive their being. In other words, for philosophers, God is the self-caused source of everything else.

Heidegger is concerned that such a God, however, is merely an invention of philosophy. “Man can neither fall to his knees in awe nor can he play music and dance before this god. The god-less thinking which must abandon the god of philosophy, god as causa sui [self-caused], is thus perhaps closer to the divine God.” This is significant: Heidegger is saying that those who claim not to believe in “god” are closer to the true God than those who believe in the onto-theological god of the philosophers. Why is onto-theology such a problem for Heidegger? Because if God is merely the greatest being, the first cause, the unmoved mover, then we have made God into something that enables us to explain the Universe. The god of onto-theology is nothing more than an idol made in the service of human thinking and the human desire to have control and mastery. Commenting on Heidegger, philosopher Merold Westphal explains, “God’s raison d’etre has become to make it possible for human reason to give ultimate explanations.”

Likewise, I want to suggest here that Inerrancy is a way of making it possible for humans to control what it means for scripture to be authoritative. This deserves a caveat, because just as I don’t wish to demean the Christian influences with which I grew up, I don’t wish to demean those who hold to Inerrancy: there are many godly men and women who speak of the Bible as Inerrant. Nonetheless, just because godly people hold to a certain doctrine does not mean we should abandon critical thinking about what they believe, even if those are the people who brought us to Christ in the first place.
Inerrancy seems to be a way of setting the authority of scripture above scripture itself, just as onto-theology is a way of setting human thinking about “god” above God himself. The discourse of Inerrancy sets truth and error as the most fundamental possibilities about reality, which means that scripture must be defined in terms of those realities. For scripture to be Inerrant, it must be true. But just as it is dangerous to fit God into human categories about Being which enable us to explain everything else, it is also dangerous to put the Bible into human categories about Truth which ensure that we can maintain its authority. Perhaps we should begin with scripture itself, instead of with notions of truth that determine what sort of authority scripture can have.

So How Can The Bible Be Authoritative?

One of the best texts I have encountered on the nature of biblical authority is an essay entitled How Can The Bible Be Authoritative? by our third thinker, the Anglican (if warning bells didn’t go off in your head at mention of the French and German philosophers, they should now) Bishop of Durham, N.T. Wright. Though Wright is not specifically addressing the question of Inerrancy, he expresses the same concern about how we view the Bible: that is, that we have set our notions of truth and authority above the Bible itself. “We have tended to let the word ‘authority’ be the fixed point and have adjusted ‘scripture’ to meet it, instead of the other way round…When people in the church talk about authority they are very often talking about controlling people or situations. They want to make sure that everything is regulated properly, that the church does not go off the rails doctrinally or ethically, that correct ideas and practices are upheld and transmitted to the next generation.” Wright suggests further, however, that “If we really engage with the Bible…we will be set free from (among other things) some of the small-scale evangelical paranoia which goes on about scripture. We won’t be forced into awkward corners, answering impossible questions of the ‘Have you stopped beating your wife?’ variety about whether scripture is exactly this or exactly that…Actually using the Bible…is a far sounder thing than mouthing lots of words beginning with ‘in—’ but still imprisoning the Bible within evangelical tradition (which is what some of those ‘in—’ words seem almost designed to do).”

Rather than coming up with a way of talking about authority and then saying that scripture meets this standard, Wright maintains that we should turn to scripture itself to see what type of authority it suggests. He begins by observing that most of scripture does not come in the form of propositional statements, as Inerrantists would suggest. Instead, scripture is very often in the form of narrative or story. This being the case, the obvious question is, What does it mean for a story to be authoritative? Wright imagines a scenario in which a hypothetical play of Shakespeare is found with an incomplete final act. The play is given to a group of expert actors and actresses who have the responsibility of coming up with a final act based on what happened in the previous acts. In this way, the earlier acts serve as authoritative. Wright suggests that in the same way, scripture serves as an authoritative story about God’s dealings with humans; based on this story God has charged us to complete the final act. This type of authority is very different from the Inerrant authority of Absolute truth. As Wright notes, “Story authority, as Jesus knew only too well, is the authority that really works. Throw a rule book at people’s head, or offer them a list of doctrines, and they can duck or avoid it, or simply disagree and go away. Tell them a story, though, and you invite them to come into a different world; you invite them to share a world-view or better still a ‘God-view’.”

This type of story authority, something into which we can enter as full human beings and which can dramatically change our lives, seems much more appropriate to scripture than the type of correlation with Absolute Truth which Inerrancy suggests. This is a Bible which does not conform to truth, but through which the Truth Himself—God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—has chosen to speak and by which he has chosen to guide his people. These may seem like petty distinctions, but the implications are monumental: the Word of God is not judged by other standards of truth, but serves as the judge over all human thinking and reasoning, including our abilities to talk about what does or does not count as true.

Where does this leave us?

I have suggested that Inerrancy is not simply a doctrine, but that it is a term that represents an entire discourse which allows for two possibilities regarding the Bible: errancy or inerrancy. Inerrancy is attained when something lines up with Absolute and objective truth. I have further suggested that such a view of scripture imposes human thinking onto scripture rather than letting scripture define human thinking, and offered N.T. Wright’s suggestion about narrative as a possible alternative to Inerrancy. This has admittedly been only a sketch of a possible alternative to the errancy/inerrancy dichotomy, but much more has been said by Wright and others—such as Kevin Vanhoozer—about thinking of scripture in terms of a drama. In such discussions, however, we should keep in mind that the ultimate goal is to allow scripture to have its place in the life of the Church and for individual followers of Christ as the authoritative Word of God. Regardless of what we call it, our role is to submit to and obey God’s authority as found in the scriptures. This authority is “God’s own authority, exercised not to give true information about wholeness but to give wholeness itself, by judging and remaking the thoughts and intentions, the imaginations and rememberings, of men, women and children.” If we truly give scripture such a place, the words we use to describe it—even if they do not fit perfectly (and they never will be perfect) with what scripture actually is—will ultimately be of little consequence.

Future?? Very unclear

But I have been thinking a little about seminary these days, especially Fuller. I like the Evangelical identity it maintains (as far as I understand) which is still open to other perspectives and change and development. What would I do once I finished seminary? Probably make a lot of money at other people's expense. Actually, it would probably just be delaying the beginning of whatever kind of job I'm eventually going to have. So I'm just trusting that God will guide me in the right direction when the time comes and that my inclination to study at seminary is leading me in the direction he's called me.

What is church?

This is an article I wrote for our school newspaper recently. Perhaps it will be thought-provoking.

Recent issues of the Record have reminded us of some important points regarding the Church. Among these is the oft-repeated mantra that “Wheaton is not a church.” There certainly seems to be an element of aphoristic wisdom here, but I have yet to hear a good explanation of the actual difference. Instead, the point is usually just assumed, and perhaps backed up with some well-disguised circular reasoning.

The question remains: What is a/the Church/church, and why isn’t Wheaton it? I’ve heard professors lament the condition of Evangelical ecclesiology, and this particular discussion is a case point. Some characteristics of churches I’ve attended are: music, teaching and preaching, some kind of relational function usually called community or fellowship, institutional organization and discipline at least to some degree, some type of observance of the Lord’s Supper, and Baptism. Though Wheaton does not baptize incoming freshman, perhaps we should, considering that all of the other elements are present. We all assemble three times a week for communal teaching and worship, once a month for communion, constantly discuss and consider ways to promote community, and even have personal discipline (viz., the Covenant and Dean Powers). I don’t mean to denigrate any of things; I just mean to point out that churches and Wheaton have much in common. Though Wheaton is only part of the body of Christ, so are all the other local instanceations of the Body which we call “churches.” The institution of “Wheaton College” may have a narrower purpose than most churches, but the similarities are striking.

Another potential argument for why students need a local church in addition to Wheaton is the race and age diversity which Wheaton lacks. In my experience, however, most churches are racially homogenous and generationally segregated. Only in a minority of churches would a student find it easier to build relationships with people of other backgrounds and ages than doing the same thing with students and professors at Wheaton. In fact, I’ve generally found it easier to build relationships with professors than with older members of the church I attend.

If the issue is service—the fact that for a healthy Christian life one needs not only to receive, but more importantly to give to others—Wheaton again provides plenty of opportunities. One could tutor inner city children, do soccer ministry, become an RA, or simply take the time to invest in the lives of peers. It could certainly be argued that ministry should be done in the context of the church community, not as individuals. Again, however, Wheaton seems to be on approximately the same level as most churches—some people are out doing ministry alone, others are working in groups on their own initiative, and others are officially supported and led by the institution.

Admittedly, it seems intuitively true that students should attend church on Sunday morning, if for no other reason than for a change of setting from Wheaton. But if we are going to claim on more substantial grounds that Wheaton is not a church, we should establish exactly why this is the case rather than simply saying so, and then saying so again. Until we have a more robustly articulated ecclesiology, perhaps some students might be justified in church-shopping during a portion of their college years to get a sense of the variety found within the Church beyond Wheaton College. This isn’t to deny that “doing” church ultimately requires a commitment to love a specific group of believers when this comes easily and, more importantly, when this becomes incredibly difficult. I’ve heard community defined as consisting of those people one least wants to be with. But I still fail to see a compelling reason why this must necessarily be done with a “church” rather than an intentional community in the context of the College.

I was just talking to a friend about how wierd it is to have different lives in different places, especially when they connect. It's usually good though. And Capernwray seems to be slowing filtering in to the rest of my life. There are at least four (five, depending how you count) at Wheaton. Daveo's 40 minutes away at Moody. And Ben is gonna be in Ohio for New Year's! Anyway, you get a lot of perspective on yourself when someone else sees a different part of your life. Daveo and another friend from Wheaton came home with me for Thanksgiving, and we had a great time. But I never realized how my family probably looks to someone else, who grew up in a completely different way. Well, I have some other thoughts brewing, but it may be a while.

Dumb and Dumber

That's Jimmy and Justin.

I just want to point out that as of right now, my blogging average over the last two months is higher than Daveo's. I think that's saying something.

Justin and I had the opportunity to MC the Wheaton College talent show on Friday night. That means we got to make jokes and do the thriller dance (compliments of Brittany, Dana, and Kellen) in front of the whole school and parents. It was lots of fun.

We also ran a marathon the weekend before with 50,000 other people in downtown Chicago.

It was a pretty exciting and full couple of weeks. But now life is back to a little more normal pace. Finals papers are looming in the distance. And hopefully more get togethers with Capernwray/T-hof friends. Daveo's coming back to my place in Ohio for Thanksgiving, and my parents are definitely up for having more. So keep that in mind. Anyone is welcome.

Perhaps some entertaining pictures of Justin and I making fools of ourselves will be forthcoming.

Lamps from Ikea

After a wonderful roadtrip to Iceland--I mean San Diego--Justin and I arrived in Wheaton last Saturday. We have spent the last week getting to know our fellow RA's in Smith-Traber Halls. One of the highlights was a men's trip to Ikea, during which we obtained lamps, tables, and other necessities for our rooms. There's nothing that brings a group of guys together like a shopping trip. We then traveled to Wheaton's campus in Northern Wisconsin for training, etc. During one of our team-building exercises, several people had certain roles to play that the rest of the group didn't know about. Justin's role was to refrain from speaking unless spoken to. I'm sure you can imagine the difficulty for him.

I hope that God's grace infiltrates everyday of your lives and everything you do.

Seeing old friends and cross-country road trips. There's no better combination.