“God is ‘Truth’”:  The First Summary Statement of CSBI

"The BioLogos Forum" frequently features essays from The BioLogos Foundation's leaders and Senior Fellows. 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 Pete Enns. Pete Enns is a former Senior Fellow of Biblical Studies for The BioLogos Foundation and author of several books and commentaries, including the popular Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament, which looks at three questions raised by biblical scholars that seem to threaten traditional views of Scripture.

This is part twoin a blog series by Pete Enns (other parts can be found in the sidebar). In order to remove obstacles from the science and faith discussion, Enns carefully examines both the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (CSBI) and the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics (CSBH), two documents that were developed by the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy. The CSBI and CSBH were produced during three-day summits to which approximately 300 pastors from the Evangelical community came in an effort to defend and define biblical inerrancy. Despite their best efforts, there are still hermeneutical and theological shortcomings in the statements that pose road blocks to the progression of the science and faith discussion. Throughout the series, Enns looks at three main problems with the content of these declarations: inadequate genre recognition, a failure to appreciate how the New Testament’s use of the Old Testament complicates various Articles, and a failure to appreciate narrative developments within the Bible.

After the Preface, which we looked at in my last post, the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (CSBI) begins with a five-point Summary Statement. This summary encapsulates the theological grounding for the nineteen Articles of Affirmation and Denial to follow.

It is important to look carefully at this summary for it will alert us to what the framers of CSBI felt to be of prime theological importance. At each of these five points, views are expressed that most would quickly recognize as common among Evangelicals, and so not at all surprising or consequential. But there are also various directions being announced here that, perhaps unwittingly, restrict the science/faith discussion unnecessarily.

To provide the fullest context possible, I will reproduce each of these five points in turn and offer my own theological and hermeneutical thoughts in response while bearing in mind the science/faith discussion. I put in bold type those words and phrases that are particularly important to point out. We begin today with the first summary point.

1. God, who is Himself Truth and speaks truth only, has inspired Holy Scripture in order thereby to reveal Himself to lost mankind through Jesus Christ as Creator and Lord, Redeemer and Judge. Holy Scripture is God’s witness to Himself.

A central Christian, let alone Evangelical, conviction is that Scripture is ultimately a book that reveals Christ. Now, in various Christian theologies, this general conviction can be expressed in different ways. For example, some might argue that Christ is actually the conscious topic of the Old Testament writers whereas others might put it differently: that the Bible is a grand narrative and Christ is more the final word that sums up and completes the biblical story.

Either way, the conviction expressed here is sound and fully expected: Christ is the ultimate topic of Scripture and, in revealing Christ to us, God is bearing witness to himself (note the final sentence in point one). One could quibble that failure to make explicit the Spirit’s work here at the outset misses an opportunity to begin CSBI with clearly Trinitarian theology, but that is neither here nor there at the end of the day. (The Spirit is the topic of the second summary point.)

What is a bit more thought-provoking is how “truth” is so quickly highlighted as the first quality of God to be mentioned. Of course, no one would object as if God is “Falsehood” or that he “speaks falsehood.” There is nothing incorrect about designating God in this way.

My concern is that “truth” is an ambiguous idea. No Christian would disagree with the idea in general, but the devil is in the details, so to speak. I think other portions of CSBI and CSBH will bear this out, but it seems to me that already here the framers are operating with an already worked out but unstated notion of what “truth” means for them and then expecting Scripture to follow suit.

A key theological and hermeneutical issue is already surfacing here—not only for the science/faith discussion but also for many other topics of theological interest. At stake in any Evangelical discussion of the nature of Scripture is not whether God speaks truth but what is the nature of truth that God speaks. Frankly, that is the whole point, and a failure to engage the matter on that hermeneutical and theological level is to misdirect the discussion at the outset.

Having said that, it is entirely unfair to pass judgment on CSBI based on the first summary point—the first subordinate clause, no less. I am conscious of the damage that can occur by uncharitable and strong readings of texts. But what the framers chose to bring to the surface at the very outset is revealing: they are concerned with “truth.” But, so is everyone. The question is what does “truth” mean when speaking of Scripture.

In that respect, it is worth remarking on what is missing, not only in this first point, but throughout the Summary Statement and, in my opinion, in the Articles to follow. The kind of truth one expects to see in Scripture is greatly affected by how one understands the nature of Scripture. CSBI does a very good job of impressing upon its readers the revelatory nature of Scripture, which demands that we take Scripture as “truth.”

But the manner in which God speaks truth is through the idioms, attitudes, assumptions, and general worldviews of the ancient authors. “Truth” is not a neutral philosophical concept to be downloaded onto Scripture from the outside. Rather, it is expressed in Scripture through the energetic interplay of the Spirit of God working in and through human authors. So, the question is, “What is truth in view of the fact that God is not speaking in philosophical, or even modern, terms, but to ancient peoples?” Do not the historical settings of Scripture affect how we understand the nature of the truth that the Spirit is revealing?

The implications of all of this will be seen more clearly as we continue with the Summary Statement and the Articles, but let me get to the point here. Elsewhere, CSBI will either argue or imply that since Scripture is divine revelation, and since God is Truth and can only speak truth, therefore that revelation cannot be “untrue” in, say, the creation story or in how biblical authors describe historical events.

To put it another way, this opening summary statement appears to be steering the discussion in a direction that will curtail the necessary hermeneutical and theological subtlety needed to engage the science/faith discussion. To be clear, I do not mean to imply that this is intentionally strategic or deceptive. Rather, it appears to be more unconscious. But for that reason, it behooves us to pay close attention to the words in order to see the assumptions that the framers may be bringing into the discussion.

We will continue in the next post with the second summary statement.