Biblical Inerrancy?
This term has come up more and more in recent years, as factions develop within the Western church. At first, I was puzzled. What is this inerrancy they are talking about? The only ones who seemed to use the term were the more “conservative” folks, the ones who wanted to hold on to doctrine, the ones who liked to text-proof and marginalize people they did not like. In fact, this came up a lot when talking about the LGBTQIA+ community, the role of women, divorce, etc.
I am no theologian, as I have stated before, but I have a Master’s degree in literature. I can read texts and analyze them. I love the Bible, I love reading it and examining it. I also believe it is inspired. It has changed my life. But do I believe every single verse has to be taken at face value? No, I don’t.
As with every text, context matters. Who wrote it? When? Who for? What was going on at the time that prompted some of the writings? There are core tenets that are non-negotiable. Jesus iterated those. But Jesus left a lot of things unsaid and, I believe, intentionally vague. I have an opinion on why.
I may be wrong, but I think Jesus wanted to see how we would apply the teachings under an overarching principle of love and respect. He showed us the way. He was the perfect example of someone who had strong convictions about righteousness, whilst allowing love and empathy to take the lead. He was not afraid to break the Law when compassion called for flexibility. He healed on the Sabbath; he let the woman caught in adultery go free; he often declared, “You have heard it said…, but…”
Biblical inerrancy as a principle only took shape in the last couple of centuries. It is a fairly new doctrine. It started as a reaction against the Enlightenment. It was based in fear, in an effort to counteract new scientific discoveries. I will not go into this right now, but a simple Google search will explain it well.
No wonder “biblical inerrancy” is now bandied around at a time when much of Western Christianity is rooted in fear and in a reactionary posture against perceived threats. It is a defensive doctrine that causes much harm to the faith Jesus represents. Let us not be fooled. Those advocating “Biblical inerrancy” do not believe the Bible more than other Christians. They just like to manipulate verses to prove their pre-existing views and prejudices.
So, do I believe the Bible is the word of God? Yes. Do I believe it is inspired? Yes. Do I believe every word of it has to be followed to the letter? No. And actually, even those who profess to follow biblical inerrancy don’t either. If they did, they would get rid of predators and other corrupt ministers in their midst. They would also give their money to the poor and love their neighbors (all of their neighbors) as themselves.
“So, do I believe the Bible is the word of God? Yes. Do I believe it is inspired? Yes. Do I believe every word of it has to be followed to the letter? No.”
I don’t disagree with your position at all. It just doesn’t seem as if biblical inerrancy is the issue in the first instance. But this does depend on what is meant by following the Bible ‘to the letter’.
Rather, the concern seems to be bad exegesis - or the lack of exegesis altogether. Which is indeed a legit concern. In general, the Bible ought to be read in context - proper exegesis. Something that the ICOC, historically, didn’t do well, and isn’t done well generally across Christendom. I don’t think this means the ‘inerrancy’ is wrong, but that exegesis is sorely lacking.
“Those advocating “Biblical inerrancy” do not believe the Bible more than other Christians. They just like to manipulate verses to prove their pre-existing views and prejudices.”
A bit of a sweeping judgment, but point taken. Again, inerrancy isn’t the issue here, but the manipulation of verses with inerrancy as a pretext.
The claim that Jesus ‘broke the law’ doesn’t ring true, in my mind. Rather he broke the pharisaical interpretation of the law or their traditions which often superseded the law, and missed the point of the law in the first place. Again, I disagree that the ‘you have heard it said’ quote challenges inerrancy. But this would need contextualization - exegesis - to be fully understood.
All said, ‘inerrancy’, as is generally understood, isn’t necessary for Jesus to be Lord or for goodness to be good. Granted. But I suppose the next steps would be to point out the errors. I’d be keen to see this.
Thanks for addressing this and I hope you don’t take my counters as attacks in bad faith (I don’t think you would). This is just how I see it.
PS perhaps a definition, or understanding of ‘Biblical Inerrancy’ might help in this case?
I’ve been reflecting on this for a few days and have some thoughts to offer. A problem I see with the idea of a “biblical inerrancy” as a hermeneutic is that this position by sheer nature of its formulation operates as a black box. It’s a settled set of propositions. Sealed with wax and put on a shelf somewhere in a person’s theological framework. Never to be inspected.
Whereas the Bible is written to be meditative literature. To be reflected upon. Contrasted and compared. Treasures sought. Linkages created. Truth discovered. And opportunity for God’s Spirit to speak afresh to the heart created. To approach the Bible this way - I.e. as meditative literature leads to ongoing learning, wonder, humility. actual transformation, and a deeper understanding and connection with God’s eternal plan.