Inerrancy has been a topic for debate on the blogosphere over the last few weeks. Chris Tilling’s posts on the subject have received a lot of attention and interaction. I have not commented on Chris’s blog, but I thought that I would post a few very brief thoughts on the subject here. I am dissatisfied with Chris’s position, just as I am with traditional conservative evangelical positions.
1. I affirm inerrancy as a theological affirmation. The Scriptures are the Word of God. God does not lie. Therefore the Scriptures are true, and comprehensively true. I believe that we have the book that God wanted us to have, even if it is not quite the book that many evangelicals are looking for.
2. The question that we must ask, then, is not whether the Scriptures are comprehensively true, but how they are true.
3. Many of those most vocal in favour of inerrancy have an approach to Scripture that is akin to trying to use a hammer to do the task of a screwdriver. Their standard for truth is, all too often, the standard of modern historiography, or something else of the kind. Rather than understanding truth in terms of the Scriptures themselves, they are measuring the Scriptures by an alien standard. I am not convinced that the Scriptures are ‘true’ in the manner that conservative evangelicals generally presume that they must be.
4. The opponents of inerrancy do much the same thing. They also measure the Scriptures by an alien standard. They just differ from the inerrantists by claiming that the Scriptures don’t meet the mark. They claim that the hammer is faulty because it doesn’t get their screws into the wall.
5. Against both positions I hold the Scriptures as my standard of truth, not modern historiography or anything else of the kind.
6. Discussions concerning the truth of Scripture are also affected by the type of thing that we perceive the Scriptures to be. As I have argued in a recent post, since Gutenberg we have tended to think of the Scriptures primarily as a book containing facts. I believe that, if we managed to get beyond this limited conception we might be able to hold a far richer understanding of the truthfulness of Scripture. The idea that the Scriptures are essentially to be thought of as a book containing facts has skewed our discussions of inerrancy. Quite apart from anything else, it depersonalizes the sense of the Scriptures’ truthfulness.
8. Debates about inerrancy are very much played according to the rules of the game of modernity. I believe that the debate could do with a serious makeover, or we could abandon it altogether and think of some better questions to ask.
9. What about historicity? When tackling this issue we must first recognize that the Scriptures wouldn’t work if they weren’t founded in actual historical events. If the Exodus or the resurrection, for example, don’t have some sort of basis in actual events our faith is called into question.
10. That said, I am less and less convinced that the various scriptural accounts attempt to adhere to the standards that are expected of modern historiography. It seems to me that the gospels are inconsistent with each other on certain historical details. I think that the gospel authors were also probably aware of many of these inconsistencies and didn’t really care. The type of history that they were writing did not necessitate the degree of consistency that we would look for.
11. It seems to me that they were writing divinely-inspired and creative retellings of the life of Christ. Historical accuracy was more of a relative than an absolute standard for them. John Goldingay has compared this to a film like Chariots of Fire, which is based on historical fact, but does not correspond to the actual events in every respect. The one watching the film would expect a backbone of historical accuracy, but also allows for the creative freedom of the film-makers.
Whilst it has its limitations, I believe that this illustration is helpful in a number of respects. Creative retellings of history, in films or novels, for example, have the ability to put us inside history in a way that modern attempts at objective history do not. Creative retellings bring to surface the underlying themes and place the personalities of key players into sharper relief. Such ‘photoshopped’ history can serve to bring to light the most important things that might have gone unnoticed otherwise, lost in the details.
12. One could even argue that a creative retelling may even be more true to the history in certain respects than a regular historical account.
13. When you read the gospels this way, you pay attention to every detail. You do not approach the gospels as documents that have to be separated into historical wheat and chaff (as those who argue against inerrancy are in danger of doing). Every detail matters, even those that may not be directly grounded in actual historical events, because every detail is part of the creative retelling.
When I read the accounts of Judas’ death, for example, the first question I ask is not that of how the two accounts are to be harmonized. I am not sure that they can convincingly be harmonized, nor am I convinced that they were intended to be. Whilst I believe that the various gospel accounts were designed to be brought into dialogue with one another, I do not believe that this need always take the shape of harmonization. I think that evangelicals are often far too quick to harmonize and, as a result, lose sight of the many lessons that the differences and tensions between the gospels have to teach us.
The first question that I ask of the account is the role that it is intended to serve within the larger narrative. The event is recorded for a reason and serves the larger purpose of the narrative. If the history has been photoshopped, it has been photoshopped for a reason. In either case the details are important.
Anyway, I have many, many more thoughts on this subject, but I don’t have time or inclination to say anything about them just now. I am intending to write a book on Scripture sometime over the summer, probably written at a more popular level. I might say something on inerrancy in there. Perhaps not; I haven’t decided yet. By the way, on the subject of Scripture, expect some thoughts on the relationship between incarnation and inscripturation sometime in the next week or so.