After Inerrancy: Evangelicals and the Bible in a Postmodern Age, Part 6
"The BioLogos Forum" is pleased to feature essays from various guest voices in the science-and-religion dialogue. Please note the views expressed here are those of the author, not necessarily of The BioLogos Foundation. You can read more about what we believe here.
Today's entry was written by
Kenton Sparks.
Kenton Sparks is professor of Biblical Studies at Eastern University and author of several books, including his latest God's Word in Human Words: An Evangelical Appropriation of Critical Biblical Scholarship
This is the sixth of a seven-part series, which has been adapted from a Scholarly Essay of the same title. The first entry can be read here.
In his previous post, Sparks related the falleness of Creation with the non-Biblistic inerrancy of Scripture. In today’s blog, Sparks discusses how to approach Scripture in light of this revised understanding of inerrancy.
Reading Scripture After Inerrancy
How shall we read Scripture? And how shall we organize its diverse witnesses into a theological whole? These are questions that naturally come to mind once we have rejected Biblicistic inerrancy and the hermeneutical approach that it seems to imply. In this part of my discussion I will try to formulate some key elements in a theological agenda that takes Scripture seriously without entailing a docetic-like rejection of Scripture’s genuine humanity. I go into further detail in my essay.
a. Scripture as Ancient Human Discourse
God gave us Scripture in words written by many ancient authors in diverse social and historical contexts, so it seems to me that we best honor this design by treating the Bible as the ancient text that it is. If we wish to read the Epistle to Romans well, we will try to receive it as Paul’s words and, in doing so, to receive it by informing ourselves about the historical situation and context of Paul’s day insofar as this is feasible.
Our attempt to discern the aims, intentions and ideas of a biblical author will not provide a “determinate meaning” that guarantees we will get Scripture right. Nevertheless, we can achieve a sufficient sense of confidence in our understanding of Scripture, even a sense of certainty, that allows us to “run with it” in our attempt to understand God and the human situation.
Second, our attempts to read and understand Scripture should never be reduced to a singular pursuit of the author’s aims and intentions. Authors also convey unintended meanings (which careful readers might sense), and there are any number of other things that might interest readers. Good interpretation will ask questions about the author’s intentions and motivation, or even questions about what modern science can tell us about a given book of the Bible, respecting both its author and implied audience. Though historical, linguistic, sociological and theological questions may be quite foreign to the intentions of the particular biblical authors, there is no reason that readers should not put these queries to the biblical text and benefit from the answers.
b. Discerning Unity from Biblical Diversity
When we read the Bible with historical and contextual sensitivity, we discover fairly quickly that Scripture does not speak consistently on all matters. But in many other cases we find Scripture’s undeniable beauty, as it encourages us to love God and neighbor with a spirit of abandon and self-sacrifice. If this is right … if Scripture speaks the truth through often perceptive yet warped human horizons … then how can we piece together a useful and coherent understanding of God and of his relationship with us? How can the Bible, as a diverse and broken book, serve as a primary source of our theological insight?
First, if we keep in mind that every text in Scripture provides an “angle” or perspective on the truth, then we are reminded thereby that all of Scripture, even its most broken elements, speak a word from God. There is no need to resort to some kind of “canon within a canon” that excludes parts of the Bible from the theological conversation.
Second, in spite of Scripture’s obvious diversity, the overall impression is one of unity. The Bible was assembled by editors and theologians who sought to present a portrait of the human situation and of God’s redemptive plan to put it right; they were “systematic” in some respects. One result is that Scripture as a whole creates the impression of a coherent story … of what one scholar has called a “theodrama.”1
In particular, the shape of this biblical story explicitly points us to a third principle for organizing our theology. Namely, our theology should grant priority to Jesus Christ … to knowing him, his teachings, and the redemptive significance of his resurrection, ascension and eventual return. The entire canon of Scripture, with its first testament leading up to Jesus and the second reflecting back on his life, is oriented around the revelation of God in Christ.
Fourth, God speaks both explicitly and implicitly in Scripture. For example, he speaks explicitly in Deuteronomy 6 when he invites us to love God with all of our heart, and in Matthew 5 when he tells us to love our enemies. In these cases the human author’s ordinary meaning stands very close to God’s meaning. God speaks implicitly in other texts, where there might be a very great distance between the human author’s meaning and God’s. Such is the case when the human author of Deuteronomy portrays God as demanding the slaughter of Canaanites. We know from elsewhere in Scripture that this portrait of God is warped and implicitly attests to the broken condition of the biblical author and of our world.
The practical implication of a “dark text” is not that we, as modern Christians, have better insight and ethical fiber than the biblical author. Rather, the implication is that all of us are like him … all of us have “Canaanites” that we hate. So we stand together with the author of Deuteronomy as broken human beings in need of Christ.
The task of rightly relating the Bible’s diverse texts is fostered by a fifth element in our theological reading of Scripture, which usually goes by names like “progressive revelation,” “redemptive history” or, more recently, “trajectory theology.“ All of these approaches reflect a belief that, in the nature of things, God’s continuing conversation with humanity gradually unfolds within the emerging contours of history. God speaks first through creation, then through the Old Testament, then in Christ, then in the New Testament, and then through the ever-present and continuing voice of his Spirit (including its activity in and through the Church). It is fairly easy to see that there must be something right about this progressive understanding of divine discourse, both logically and substantively. Logically, whenever God speaks to us, it goes with the territory that there is some measure of “progress” in our understanding of God.
Will trajectory theology not lead us “wherever the winds of culture blow?” This is an understandable and very reasonable concern, and we should make every effort to insure that our theological work does not simply mime the latest social fashions. At the same time, we really must admit, I think, that trajectory theology has always been far-reaching and surprising to those on the conservative side of theology. Trajectory theology led the early (largely Jewish) Church to embrace uncircumcised Gentiles and led the later Church to renounce slavery and polygamy, two social institutions that were permitted in both Testaments. And in the case of slavery, it was indeed the “wind of culture” … especially the Enlightenment critics of Christianity … that contributed to our understanding of human freedom.2 So we cannot easily say beforehand where (or how) the Spirit might lead us as it guides us in reading Scripture.
Though I’ve not spelled it out up to this point, the foregoing discussion of trajectory theology implies another principle that should be at work in our reading of Scripture. Namely, a healthy use of Scripture should recognize that theology can by no means depend on Scripture only. Christian theology, as it reads and seeks to follow Scripture, must be ready to move beyond Scripture in some cases. And when it does so, this theological move is not foreign to the Bible but rather invited by it. That is, paradoxical as it might sound, it’s quite biblical to go beyond the Bible. The goal of biblically informed theology is not merely to go where the Scripture goes … we must also be ready to go where God, through Scripture, is pointing.
In his next post, Sparks will clarify what other “voices” should be listened to, if not only Scripture.
Notes
1. Kevin J. Vanhoozer, The Drama of Doctrine: A Canonical-Linguistic Approach to Christian Theology (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2005).
2. Claudine Hunting, “The Philosophes and Black Slavery,” Journal of the History of Ideas 39 (1978): 405–418.
For the latest comments, subscribe to our Comment RSS feed. See a comment that violates our Commenting Guidelines? Use the "Report Inappropriate Comment" tool in the upper-right corner.
July 16th 2010
Hi Greg,
Sorry for the confusion. In an earlier post you wrote: “How do you establish this on the authority of scripture, if it is not clear when scripture is in error?””
I though you were asking why I should base any truth claims on biblical testimony if Scripture sometimes errs. My answer is that the errors in Scripture, like the errors in all of sources of insight that are understood from a human horizon, does not mean that it is everywhere errant and that I can never agree with it and follow its lead.
And speaking of confusion, while I agree with your point about “assumption that I live in a real world ... ,” I don’t understand this phrase: “The claims that the Bible offers that can be tested are disproved, giving me no confidence in other claims that cannot be tested.”
Kent
Reply to this commentJuly 16th 2010
Kent, the Bible does not seem like an inspired book to me. I am confidant that you will explain away any examples I give to your satisfaction, but your explanations will be different from another believer’s explanation, and so far, none seem reasonable to me. My current perspective is that all religions are objects of faith - a focus for our faith, useful to us because they give focus and direction to our lives. This is good as far as it goes, but harmful when we mistake the content of faith for something in the real world.
As far as your point that just because it is in error in one area, does not mean it is errant in all, I’d say that if it is wrong in the areas where we can check (for example, a flat earth, geocentrism, a hard dome of the sky, a global flood, etc), why should we trust it for those things we cannot check? And if you get around that difficulty by treating those passages as poetry or metaphor, then how do you know you should not treat teaching or event “X” as poetry or metaphor? Of course, for any event or doctrine you can name, other believers will in fact treat the event or teaching as poetry or allegory or metaphor, and no authority can render a binding verdict as to who is right. It is a faith.
Reply to this commentJuly 17th 2010
>Of course, for any event or doctrine you can name, other believers will in fact treat the event or teaching as poetry or allegory or metaphor, and no authority can render a binding verdict as to who is right.
I reply: Well that’s not true. We Catholics have always known Jesus sent the Spirit to the Church to lead us into all truth. The Church can give an authoritative interpretation of the Scripture. In regards to Genesis She has never said the six days must be understood literally. She also recognized what books where inspired & which where not and finalized the canon by the 4th century. (Shepherd of Hermas though written by the Brother of Pope Pius the First was never seen as scripture but was an important spiritual work).
It seems to me Greg Myers is using the same polemical questions I as a Catholic would use in another forum to attack the Protestant doctrines of Perspecuity, private interpretation and Sola Scriptura(yet Greg is an Atheist). Which is odd because the last time he & I went toe to toe he insisted I could only interpret Genesis by itself (without tradition) otherwise I was somehow twisting the story. Interesting.
Reply to this commentJuly 17th 2010
Of course the Bible is Inerrant in anything that it teaches. The question then becomes what is it teaching in any particular verse? That is where Tradition 2 Thes 3:6 & the Church come into play.
Reply to this commentJuly 17th 2010
Of course if Greg is trying to tell Kent the Bible all by itself is unclear because different verses are subject to different interpretations then I as a Catholic can only applaud along with the Eastern Orthodox & Rabbinic Jews. But it is weird seeing that line of argument coming from an Atheist. One fully expects it from a Karl Keating, a Scott Hahn, a Jimmy Akin or a Patrick Madrid. Not to mention a Peter Gillquist or Rabbi Ari Kahn. Like I said interesting.
Reply to this commentJuly 17th 2010
Comment removed by moderator.
Reply to this commentJuly 19th 2010
The claim that a Catholic has the authoritative interpretation on this or that about the bible makes my point. Catholics are certain, various Protestants are certain, and there is, in fact, no way to tell if the Catholics are right, or if some other sect is right (or as I suspect) none of them is right. Then there are other religions, carrying on completely different conversations, and dealing with internal disagreements that are equally resistant to resolution. Then add in all the religions that have passed from memory, with their own urgent conversations and earnest (and often bloody) disagreements, and a pattern emerges - a pattern of fervent faith, with no way of demonstrating who is right.
The story of Elijah and the prophets of Baal underscore the importance of this point. If god does not act decisively in the real world, how will we know who the true god is? And yet god does not act in such a decisive manner, so we are left to explain away this failure with references to faith, and free will, and mystery. And in the meantime, we have a welter of faiths, urging a welter of absolutes, none which can demonstrate that they have the truth.
Reply to this commentJuly 19th 2010
I was commenting on the reasons Greg gives as to why “The Bible does not seem like an inspired book” to him. Now he has have switched to “How do I know which religion or Christian denomination is true?” combined with a claim you “can’t demonstrate which religion or sect has the truth”. Well at least that is progress in getting some clarity on his specific philosophical views.
Reply to this commentJuly 21st 2010
Hi Greg,
“I’d say that if it is wrong in the areas where we can check (for example, a flat earth, geocentrism, a hard dome of the sky, a global flood, etc), why should we trust it for those things we cannot check?”
I have never known anyone who did not err, but I often listen to and benefit from the true things that they say. The fact that humans err does not in the least threaten that fact that, for the most part, human beings are right ... formed by evolution to interpret things correctly for survival in a real world that we understand.
The development of the idea of God, and of ethical virtues grounded in something alongside or “above” the created order, suggests the existence of that order and the fundamental superiority ofreligious viewpoints over non-religious viewpoints. One should begin with this and then evaluate the religious options, making choices about how best to construe our religious situation. You and I have made different choices about this, but I respect your decisions ... all the while wishing, of course, that you agreed with my faith in the uniqueness of God’s work in Christ.
Reply to this commentJuly 21st 2010
HI Greg,
“Catholics are certain, various Protestants are certain, and there is, in fact, no way to tell if the Catholics are right, or if some other sect is right.”
One can indeed examine the evidence and decide that one construal of religious truth is better than another, and be quite certain that it is better.
BTW, I am a Catholic “light” ... acceptable the primacy of the Bishop of Rome but not accepting the infallibility of the magesterium ... So I’m in the same place respecting Catholicism as I am respecting Fundamentalism ... we don’t need inerrancy to have truth and authority.
Reply to this commentJuly 23rd 2010
Ben, my point about differing interpretations is that it reveals the lack of clarity in the text. This lack of clarity is yet another reason why it does not seem inspired. This lack is compounded by contradictions and of course, error.
Kent, the difficulty with the bible (and with humans) is how to tell the error from the accuracy.
and when you write: “The development of the idea of God, and of ethical virtues grounded in something alongside or “above” the created order, suggests the existence of that order and the fundamental superiority ofreligious viewpoints over non-religious viewpoints.” I have to say, What?” Seems much more likely that since so much of the way the world works is counter inturitive (like the earth turning, not the sun rising), it seemed more likely that some supernatural being who could break the day-to-day rules was running the show. We’ve since pretty much done away with anything for gods to do. Religions have not been all that great in the morals department - keep in mind that the bible endorses genocide, treating women as property and slavery. It is people, hard at work at developing ways for people to live in urban, pluralistic and democratic societies who have driven better ethics.
Reply to this commentJuly 23rd 2010
>Ben, my point about differing interpretations is that it reveals the lack of clarity in the text.
I reply: Catholic, Eastern Orthodox & Rabbinic Jews take it as a starting point some texts in Scripture lack clarity.
>This lack of clarity is yet another reason why it does not seem inspired.
I reply: Except I would say the idea it had to be absolutely clear came about in Christianity during the 16th century as a default view for those who rejected Tradition (2 Thes 3:6) & Church (Matt 18, 1 Yim3:15). Where you always an Atheist Greg or where you raised a Protestant? Because I’m thinking u are channeling it.
>This lack is compounded by contradictions and of course, error.
I reply: I would reject any claim of true contradictions or errors. There are just bad & faulty interpretations of the Inspired Inerrant Text. Nothing more.
Reply to this commentJuly 23rd 2010
Ben, that several traditions agree that an obviously unclear text is indeed unclear is hardly proof of anything but candor. Your position that any apparent error in the text can only be the result of faulty interpretation is a bit circular. When you have a tradition that holds the text is unclear and then further holds that the text is free of “true contradictions or errors” (whatever you mean by that), you of course free to make anything you need to of the text. This is the same approach that gives Nostradamus his credibility.
It certainly seems that the Bible is often attempts to speak with clarity. Your doctrine of textual inscrutability as a virtue is a reaction to problems, contradictions and inaccuracies in the text. In order to maintain your original premise of a text without true contradictions or errors, you have to set aside certain problematic texts, turn others into metaphor, and distort the clear meaning of others - in short, you make the text into the thing you desire, but do not have.
Reply to this commentAugust 17th 2010
This particular article shows the danger the church faces when she abandons the Bible’s own claim for itself, i.e., that it is “God breathed,” that it was produced as men were carried along by the Holy Spirit. We are left with an assortment of human ideas to pick through and evaluate according to our own standards of truth and error, morality and immorality. Accordingly, we then embrace some things that seem right to us and abhor and reject what seems errant or worse. In the end we are left without any authority but our own, and without any God, except one we have made from favorite fragments of Scripture and our own imaginations. Given such a scenario, there is no basis for our theology or morality to ever be challenged and changed for we have no authoritative Word outside ourselves to do so. If the church embraces such a view of the Bible, I am unsure why we would continue to take it seriously, for it no longer stands in a position to correct or instruct us, but rather stands in need of our instruction and correction. I would like to suggest that this is naive and arrogant in the extreme.
Reply to this comment