Science, Faith, and the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy

"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.

Introduction

Today I am beginning a new series in which I take a look in detail at two influential Evangelical statements on Scripture: the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (CSBI) and the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics (CSBH).

These statements were composed by the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, founded in 1977 to articulate and defend inerrancy. This group eventually composed three statements: CSBI in 1978, CSBH in 1982 and a third statement that for our purposes adds little, the Chicago Statement on Biblical Application in 1986.

These statement were written at a time when numerous influential Evangelical leaders were growing concerned that the church’s doctrine of inerrancy (at least how they understood it) was coming under increasing attack both from within and from outside of Evangelicalism. In many respects, these papers were a galvanizing moment in the Evangelical tradition and for many they still represent the best of Evangelical thinking on Scripture. Also, the three-day summits that produced these documents boasted roughly 300 participants from various Evangelical traditions, and so represent somewhat of a cross-section of the evangelical community.

Over the past thirty years, CSBI and CSBH have been both praised for their lucidity and balance and strongly criticized for their obscurity and theological parochialism. My series is not intended to join that fray, but I do want to focus on the impact of these statements on the science/faith discussion—and as I see it, for that discussion, the impact has been largely counterproductive.

The two statements are organized as a series of articles, meaning a theological statement comprised of an affirmation and a corresponding denial (“We affirm…..” followed by “We deny….”). Of these two statements, only two articles, both in CSBH, speak directly to the science/faith discussion (Articles XXI and XXII), and we will look at them in due course. What are of interest for us here, however, are not only direct statements about science and Scripture, but statements about Scripture and principles of interpretation that can directly or indirectly impede progress in the science/faith discussion for Evangelicals. That is a more subtle point, but still crucial for our purposes.

My aim, therefore, is to engage these two statements sympathetically yet also critically so as to move beyond the obstacles to the science/faith discussion that those statements have placed in the path for some Evangelicals.

Like most documents of this nature, CSBI and CSBH are declarative statements as well as consensus documents aimed at bringing along as many people of reasonably like mind as possible. Maintaining balance between these two purposes can sometimes lead to favoring open-ended statements and imprecise language.

I respect the delicacy and subtlety needed in crafting such statements, but nevertheless I find three persistent areas where these statements fall short of offering necessary hermeneutical subtlety and depth for facing not only the question of science and faith but other issues of theological and hermeneutical interest as well. As we go through these statements, I will point out where these shortcomings appear, but let me first simply mention the three general areas: (1) inadequate genre recognition, especially in the Old Testament, (2) failure to appreciate how the New Testament’s use of the Old complicates various Articles in crucial ways and (3) failure to appreciate fully narrative trajectories and developments within the Christian Bible. These are three major areas that adversely affect in some way how one addresses the science/faith discussion.

We will begin here by looking at CSBI.

Structure of CSBI

CSBI begins with a brief preface followed by a brief five-point Summary Statement, nineteen Articles of Affirmation and Denial and a section called Exposition. This final section fleshes out the theological basis upon which the articles are based by devoting several brief paragraphs to each of the following subtopics: Creation, Revelation, and Inspiration; Authority: Christ and the Bible; Infallibility, Inerrancy, and Interpretation; Skepticism and Criticism; Transmission and Translation; Inerrancy and Authority. At various points, the Exposition section clarifies or at least expands a bit on the briefer Articles of Affirmation and Denial. At relevant points, I will bring this section into the discussion when trying to clarify the articles.

Preface

The Preface is five brief paragraphs long and, as one can well guess, introduces the statement as a whole. The Preface makes several claims that help orient the reader for what follows:

1. The authority of Scripture is a key issue for each generation of believers and in every age. To stray from Scripture is to stray from Christ himself, and inerrancy guards against that.
2. In fact, inerrancy is Jesus’ own view of the Bible, and so to set aside inerrancy is to set aside “the witness of Jesus Christ and of the Holy Spirit.”
3. The writers do not claim that this statement is the final word, that it should be given “creedal weight,” or that the writers are personally infallible. They do, however, hope that their efforts will bring on a “new reformation of the Church in its faith, life and mission.”
4. The statement is offered in “humility and love” and in a spirit of dialogue, acknowledging that those who deny inerrancy do not necessarily “display the consequences of this denial in the rest of their belief and behavior” and that those who uphold inerrancy do not always reflect that faith in their lives.

It is clear that, among other things, the summit participants feel a certain degree of gravitas in their work to craft a statement that will “challenge all Christians to growing appreciation and understanding” of inerrancy. Much is at stake in maintaining this doctrine—including obedience to Christ himself. One begins the Articles section, therefore, anticipating that each of these articles is a crucial link in the inerrancy chain and so each bears much weight.

On one level one can appreciate the sense of urgency, but the tone set here at the outset does not encourage theological and hermeneutical dialogue despite the disclaimers above.

A further point of reflection here at the outset is that the Preface essentially seems to equate the notion of biblical authority and its “total truth and trustworthiness” with inerrancy, as these framers understood it. Others, however, will not be as quick to link authority, truth and trustworthiness of Scripture to a particular understanding of inerrancy.

In other words, there may be different ways of crafting notions of biblical authority and trustworthiness that are utterly respectful of Scripture but that do not adhere to the language and concepts promulgated in these two statements. Insisting on only one path forward may stifle much needed discussion of the nature of Scripture vis-à-vis science.

In my next post we will move to consider the five-point Summary Statement. Like the Preface, the Summary prepares readers for the Articles, although with more specificity.