Christianity receives a bad rap at times when it comes to sex. In particular, Paul has an undeserved reputation as being down on sex (and indeed women). However, whilst he may be unromantic in our sense, he is far more positive about sex that most people realise. Below is an essay I wrote some time ago that discusses this issue as found in Paul's first letter (that we have) to the church at Corinth, 1 Cor 7, especially verse 1.
Introduction
The church has often held marriage in low esteem. Jerome allowed me to marry if they were too frightened to sleep alone at night[1]. Augustine thought that sexual intercourse was a consequence of the fall and a sin God only forgave in marriage[2]. For Gregory, it was ok only if you didn’t enjoy it[3]. John Chrysostom[4], commenting on 1 Corinthians 7.1, thought that it better to have nothing to do with a woman, but that because of infirmity some should seek a wife, i.e. Paul offers a concession. Even Calvin held such a view[5]. Here, I will show that Paul quotes and dismisses in 7.1 the view of some at Corinth that it is better for a man not to have sexual relations with his wife.
Who is speaking?
Is Paul giving his own opinion (Hodge[6]), or is he quoting or paraphrasing the Corinthians (Powers[7], Garland[8])? Garland provides six arguments for 7.1b being a quotation.
Paul often quotes the Corinthians[9]: 1.12 (each one of you says), 3.4 (when one says), 6.12-13, 8.1, 4 (we know that), 10.23, 10.28 (one of you says), 12.3, 15.3 (some of you say), 32, 35 (some one will ask). Garland’s first argument concerns Paul’s use of peri de (now concerning). It introduces a new subject[10] (7.1, 25, 8.1, 12.1, 16.1, 12) but is not necessarily an answering formula. On a number of occasions it simply introduces a new topic that Paul wishes to address. It does not necessarily correspond to a topic raised in their letter (7.1), because he had several information sources (1.11, 16.17). Here it is clear that Paul is responding to “hwn egrapsate” (that which you write). Hence, peri de (also 8.1) functions as an answering formula. In 8.1, Paul most probably quotes the Corinthians “all of us possesses knowledge”, and then proceeds seriously qualify this statement. 7.1 is consistent with this pattern.
Garland’s second argument centres on Paul’s use of kalon. It is argued that since Paul uses it in 7.8, 26, then it must be Paul speaking in 7.1. But Garland notes that 7.26 reads like a quote, and so we might infer that kalon was a word in use in Corinth to describe their spiritually superior practices. However, this is a weak argument either way. Paul is as free to use words and ideas from the Greek language, as are his readers.
Garland’s third argument is that, if this is a reply, then Paul contradicts himself in v2-5[11] and Scripture (Gen 2.18). The context of Genesis makes it clear that the man and woman’s relationship was intended to be a sexual one (2.24-25). For Paul to say that it is good for a man not to touch a woman (to have a sexual relationship) contradicts Scripture. Hodge[12] attempts to avoid this problem (strenuously denying that Paul could contradict Scripture (Gen 2.18, Heb 13.4) or himself in 1 Tim 4.3) by assuming that kalon means expedient. He relates this expediency to the present distress (v26[13]). But as shall be argued below, the best way to understand 7.1 is as a statement about those who are currently married, and hence this argument is irrelevant for the discussion of the origin of the remark.
The fourth argument is that 7.1b focuses on the man, whilst v2-5 focuses equally on the rights and responsibilities of both sexes. Hence, the argument is that in v1b, some faction of the Corinthians were emphasising that it was more spiritual for men not to have sexual relations with their wives. In response, Paul stresses the rights and responsibilities of both parties in the marriage relationship.
Garland’s fifth argument is that, whilst Paul does encourage celibacy, it is for reasons of expediency only, so that people can devote themselves to the Lord (7.32-35) and not because he sees celibacy as some higher good, as some of the Corinthians almost certainly did.
Garland’s last argument is that Paul affirms that marriage is good. Those who marry do well (7.38). The unbelieving spouse can be consecrated by marriage to a believing spouse (7.14-15). He condemns asceticism (1 Tim 4.3), and uses marriage as a metaphor for Christ and the church (Eph 5.25-33). We can add to Garland’s data 9.5. Paul claims the right to marry, and refers to the other apostles, Peter and Jesus’ brothers all being married and travelling with their wives.
Hence, it the most likely option that Paul quotes “that which you wrote”. As Powers notes, “all anomalies disappear if Paul is quoting them[14].” He may even be dictating with the letter in front of him[15].
What are they saying?
Translations vary from it is better for a man “not to marry[16]”, to “not to have sexual relations with a woman[17]”, or more literally “to touch a woman[18]”. However, there are problems with these renderings. The infinitive gamein (to marry) is not in the text. Instead the aorist infinitive aptethai, to touch, is used. The meaning in this context is “to touch intimately, to have sexual contact[19]”. To touch never means to marry, such a translation is misleading[20]. So why do commentators and translators render the verse as “to marry”? Such a view is only sustainable if anthrwpos is meant as man in the general sense and gunaikos as woman. In this case, to touch could be synonymous with to marry, as Paul makes it clear that marriage is the only context for sexual relationships (e.g. 7.9).
However, the context (v2-5) suggests that we must understand gynaikos as wife, and therefore anthrwpos is to be understood as husband (see below). For the moment, it is enough to show that it is possible that anthrwpos is to be understood to mean a man who is currently in a marriage relationship (i.e. a husband). The common meaning of anthrwpos is a person of either sex, i.e. a human being[21]. However, in Mt 19, Jesus deals with the issue of divorce. In verse 9, he forbids anyone to divorce his gunaika, i.e. his wife. In verse 10, the disciples are shocked and that if this is the case of “the man with his woman” (better “the married man with his wife”), then it is better not to marry. Clearly, the context demands that anthrwpou means a man who is married. Therefore, it is possible that it may be understood thus in 1 Cor 7.1, and so touch means sex within marriage.
We should also note that anthrwpw and gunaikos are indefinite (lacking the article). Powers[22] comments that this is at the level of a general discussion, i.e. there is no one particular individual in mind, hence “a wife” and not “the wife”. Likewise, it is not unusual in Greek to exclude the article when a close relationship is implied (hence no genitive article). It is appropriate therefore, to follow Powers[23]
One last issue is the meaning of kalon (good). Garland[24] ties this to whether or not the Corinthians are asking a question[25] or are making a statement[26]. He presents four possible meanings: 1) morally good; 2) expedient or beneficial; 3) one good among several goods; 4) a comparative, i.e. better. If these are the words of Paul, then option 1 is excluded (see above). Option 2 is possible if one can link 7.1b to 7.26, but these are separate issues[27]. Option 3 does not fit, as in 2-5, Paul defends sex in marriage, and 7.1b refers to those who are in a marriage. Garland notes that option 4 also fits 7.26, but this again makes a false connection.
Given that Paul is quoting the Corinthians, and that v2-5 commands that marriage partners do not refuse each other sexually, it is likely that the Corinthian view is stronger than “better”. Likewise, given the Corinthian obsession with wisdom (cpt 1-2) and “spirituals” (cpt 12), it is likely that option 1 is correct. Some of the Corinthians thought it more spiritual to abstain from sex, even if married. Hence, we may infer that they were telling Paul their view, not asking for his.
So why was it that the Corinthians rejected sex in marriage? As Powers[28] notes in commenting on v2a, this passage only makes sense if it concerns those who were married and then became Christian, and asked themselves the question, “should we continue to have sexual intercourse?” There are a variety of influences, including various philosophical and religious factors[29]. It may, however, be as simple as a reaction against their former immoral background (6.9-11)[30]. They may also have heard Paul’s teaching as found in Gal 3.28, and seen Paul as single, and become confused[31].
Explaining v2-5
As has been discussed, v2-5 offers a corrective to the Corinthian view expressed in v1b. Hodge must see v1b as a temporary measure in the present distress[32], but this does not change the general rule.
Likewise, Garland[33] sees v2-5 as a qualification of 7.1b (see also Wright who begins his paraphrase of v2 with “well yes”[34], and believes that at one level, Paul agrees with them[35]). But this is because he understands anthrwpw as man in general terms, and that the change to aner indicates that he now addresses the marriage relationship. However, as has been shown above, this is also an unnecessary move. Nevertheless, Garland and Powers agree against Hodge that it is not celibacy as such but celibacy in marriage that is to be avoided. It is a dangerous suggestion refuted[36]. Just as he advised those who had been married (7.8-9), it is better to marry than burn in passion, those who are married should not seek abstinence, which is impractical and inappropriate[37]. One might say that once the sexual genie has been let out of the bottle, it is not appropriate to try and put it back. Hyperspirituality can also lead to a backlash of fleshly indulgence[38].
Just as in 5.1 exein (to have) is euphemistic for sex, so exetw in v2 implies marriage in its fullest sense, including sexual intercourse[39]. Here we see the difficulties of reading v1b as being Paul speaking, for in v2 he uses the 2nd person singular present imperative, they must continue to have sexual relationships. So, since v1 addresses those who are already married, exein cannot mean that an unmarried man should find a wife[40].
Paul is even handed about what men and women should do[41], declaring that there should be mutuality within marriage, both are apodidotw (fulfil, imperative) their sexual obligations (v3. lit what is due), both do not have authority over their own bodies (v4) and they are not to defraud one another (v5). This is because of porneias (immoralities, i.e. plural), indicating temptations for both marriage partners[42]. Hence, although Paul allows abstinence pros kairos for prayer (for a time, note the aorist of devote oneself to, a short period of intense prayer in response to some special circumstance or need[43], also kairos is a key period in God’s timing, also indicating a special circumstance[44]), they are to come together again in order that Satan might not test them.
Given Paul’s commands to sexual obligation in v2-5, v6 must look either forward (as houtos does in 7.29, 9.3, 11.17, 15.50), to the concessions of v8-9 or the concession for times of prayer, but not to any imagined concession to marriage.
Conclusions
A correct exegesis of 7.1 is important for our understanding of Paul’s attitude towards sex and marriage. 7.1b is a quotation from the Corinthian’s letter, a statement by some that it is morally superior to abstain from sexual intercourse within marriage. Verses 2-5 are not a concession; they are a command to married people to fulfil their obligations to their partners. They do this because 1) this is their partner’s due, 2) temptations for both of them will follow which are 3) temptations from Satan. It may be that Paul thinks singleness and therefore celibacy allows one to serve the Lord more fully and free one from the cares of marriage. However, he doesn’t depreciate marriage or sex. For Paul, sex is for marriage and marriage is for sex.
References
John Calvin, Commentary on Corinthians - Volume 1, Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 1999.
St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on First Corinthians, HOMILY XIX, Electronic version copyright © 1997 by New Advent, Inc.
Frederick William Danker (ed), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Literature, 3rd Edition (BDAG), Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 2000.
David E Garland, 1 Corinthians, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003.
Richard B. Hays, First Corinthians, Louisville, Kentucky: John Knox Press, 1997.
Charles Hodge, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, An Exposition by Charles Hodge, Highgate, London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1959.
B. Ward Powers, Unit 221, New Testament 2: 1 Corinthians, Tyndale College, 2004.
David Prior, The Message of 1 Corinthians: Life in the Local Church, Leicester, Inter-Varsity Press, 1993.
J. Paul Sampley, The First Letter to the Corinthians: Introduction, Commentary and Reflections, in The New Interpreters Bible, Volume X, Nashville, Abingdon Press, 2002.
Tom Wright, Paul for Everyone: 1 Corinthians, Holy Trinity Church, London: SPCK, 2004.
[1] Quote in B. Ward Powers, Marriage an Divorce: The New Testament Teaching, Petersham, New South Wales: IMPACT, 1987, p288.
[2] Powers, Marriage, p289-90.
[3] Powers, Marriage, p290.
[4] St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on First Corinthians, HOMILY XIX, Electronic version copyright © 1997 by New Advent, Inc.
[5] John Calvin, Commentary on Corinthians - Volume 1, Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 1999, p136.
[6] Charles Hodge, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, An Exposition by Charles Hodge, Highgate, London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1959, p108.
[7] Powers, Marriage, p81.
[8] David E Garland, 1 Corinthians, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003, p251.
[9] B. Ward Powers, Unit 221, New Testament 2: 1 Corinthians, Tyndale College, 2004, Lecture 7.
[10] Garland, 248.
[11] Powers, New Testament, ibid; Garland, p249.
[12] Hodge, ibid.
[13] Hodge, p109. Also Garland, p253.
[14] Powers, New Testament, ibid.
[15] David Prior, The Message of 1 Corinthians: Life in the Local Church, Leicester, Inter-Varsity Press, 1993, p114.
[16] NIV.
[17] NIV margin, The Message, New International Reader’s Version, CEV.
[18] RSV, NRSV, NASB, KJV, NKJV, 21st Century KJV, Young’s Literal Version, Darby.
[19] Frederick William Danker (ed), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Literature, 3rd Edition (BDAG), Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 2000, p180.
[20] Richard B. Hays, First Corinthians, Louisville, Kentucky: John Knox Press, 1997, p113.
[21] BDAG, p80.
[22] Powers, New Testament, ibid.
[23] Powers, Marriage, p81.
[24] Garland, p252.
[25] New Life Version.
[26] E.g. NRSV.
[27] Powers, New Testament, Lecture 10.
[28] Powers, New Testament, Lecture 7.
[29] See the footnotes in Garland, p263-266.
[30] Powers, New Testament, ibid.
[31] Hays, First Corinthians, p114-5.
[32] Hodge, ibid.
[33] Garland, 255.
[34] Tom Wright, Paul for Everyone: 1 Corinthians, Holy Trinity Church, London: SPCK, 2004, p75.
[35] Wright, Paul, p77.
[36] Powers, New Testament, ibid.
[37] Garland, ibid.
[38] Hays, First Corinthians, p118.
[39] Garland, p256, Powers, New Testament, ibid.
[40] Hays, First Corinthians, ibid.
[41] J. Paul Sampley, The First Letter to the Corinthians: Introduction, Commentary and Reflections, in The New Interpreters Bible, Volume X, Nashville, Abingdon Press, 2002, p873.
[42] Powers, New Testament, ibid.
[43] Powers, New Testament, ibid. Garland, p262.
[44] Prior, The Message, p117.
Sunday, April 16, 2006
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
Preaching to the postmodern in the pews
The following is a book review that I wrote for Essentials, the publication of the Evangelical Fellowship in the Anglican Communion (EFAC) is 2002.
Introduction
Chris Edward's recent article in Essentials on church planting made me think: what do we do with people who don't want to be preached at? Churches may not be built on issues of musical style, but do we put hymnbook before praising God, prayer book before worshipping God, Anglicanism before faith? Most of my Christian growth was 30-40 minute sermons and the prayer book. So when we were planning an unchurched and youth friendly evening service, with 15-20 minute sermons, no prayer book, mostly modern songs and a data projector, I had to stretch myself a little. As a lay preacher, how could I be brief (when 30 minutes was easy for me), use a technology in church I had seen badly used, and let God speak to people's needs?
Postmodern pews
Before now, my three favorite thinkers on preaching have been Haddon Robinson, John Chapman and Peter Adam. To that list I must now add Graham Johnston and his book Preaching to a Postmodern World. That Robinson wrote the forward gave me hope, and I wasn't disappointed. In seven chapters he gives preachers an understanding of some of the issues of the postmodern mindset, issues we must recognise and deal with if we are to allow God's word to be heard. Chapter 1 illustrates Romans 12.2: that people in the pews can and do have postmodern ideas, even if they cannot articulate them as such. The all pervasive media presents a panoply of views, none of which is Christian, and it is naive to think people in the pews remain untouched by these. He challenges us to be lovers of people as well as truth, and to oppose postmodernism without retreating into modernism.
What is the postmodern mind?
Chapter 2 defines ten distinctives of postmodern thought: it's reacting to modernity, rejection of objective truth, suspicion of authority, search for community and transcendence, and it's living in a media world. Chapter 3 warns us to concentrate more on "what" rather than "how", not making the gospel weak which will actually drive people away. However, we must know our listeners to have impact, as Nathan knew David when rebuking his adultery. We must have an ethos of caring for our listeners, for this will come out in our non-verbal communication. And we must begin sermons in the secular, in the life experiences of the listeners, who might not care what Paul is saying in Colossians 2 unless it connects with where they are and is seen to be relevant.
Reaching postmoderns
Chapter 4 stresses the need to be more apologetic in preaching, while chapter 5 addresses some of the obstacles to biblical preaching, the "closed doors". In an age where no text is authoritative, simply stating that the Bible really is, is not as useful as allowing people to see for themselves that the Bible is true. Allow people to have doubts, ask questions and church to be a place where nonbelievers can come. Johnston illustrates this point well with the story of a man who although interested in spiritual ideas felt church was not a place for him, only for believers.
Johnston urges us not to flinch at the uniqueness of Jesus, but to teach it clearly and teach against the many other ideas that exist. In chapter 6 he moves from obstacles to inroads: the desire for spirituality but not religion, and the postmodern's yearning for community and hope. Finally, chapter 7 deals with the practicalities; the use of inductive preaching, story telling and a dialogical approach. This deals with Chris Edwards' concern, that we don't preach at people but communicate with them in a way that encourages them to think it through. Elsewhere Johnston calls this producing disciples, not just followers. He also urges the use of multimedia to present Christian values and thinking. After all, Hollywood uses it to present theirs!
Principles in practice
The more I read this book, the more I knew God had thought of it all first! Our sermon series was on "What is worship?". My text was not on how but on why: Romans 12.1. It speaks of spiritual worship. My theological side told me to explain what logikos meant, but my homiletical and now postmodern side told me to ask which they would prefer to be known as: spiritual or religious? A photograph of the Dalai Lama was used to show that people in society were interested in the former but not the latter - so why should we bother with church? A Larson cartoon of a cow standing on its hind legs saying "This is grass we've been eating!" highlighted the point - why do something unthinkingly? I wanted to address those who worshipped at church because of tradition, and those on the edge or from outside of the church who might simply ask "why bother?" So Romans 12.1 addresses postmodernism's interest in spirituality.
But is also addresses the cynicism about authority. How? Paul urges his readers as their brother (he uses adelphoi), but does not make demands as an apostle. It is not merely in view of God's mercy: a postmodern who is told God is merciful will say "so what?" Neither will saying "God has been merciful to me" help, for the postmodern will say "whatever works for you." But Paul appealed to his readers by means of God's mercies (dia), that is God's mercies are instrumental in his appeal. Tell people what you are saying is based on and indeed is part of God's mercies to them and they will listen.
To explain mercy, I showed a picture of the World Trade Centre in flames, a powerful and potentially dangerous illustration to use. Where had they been when it happened? What were they doing? How did they feel? Did they want justice? Questions to get them in, so what is justice? Does God really exist, and if he does why doesn't he do something? But what if he did? Where does justice stop and who decides what needs judging? Jesus said anger was as bad as murder, so do only suicide bombers need judging or will it include us? Without justice, mercy has no meaning, but in the cross both justice and mercy are shown. Evil isn't the illusion that Buddhism says it is, but a problem of the human heart, which God has dealt with in the cross.
Another postmodern concern is pragmatism, what does it mean for me? Is it relevant? Spiritual worship is being a living sacrifice, not being "too heavenly minded to be of any earthly use". The whole of life can and should be worship: work, play and church. An illustration from my own life was helpful - for the postmodern preacher is willing to share from his or her own life. A Sunday morning call from work would be met with my scorn, for I am an employee in office hours only. However, when my unborn child grows up, will they cease to be my child when they are 30 and are in need? Just as I'll never stop being a dad, leaving church doesn't mean I stop being a worshipper.
Preaching transformed
I'll never view the preaching task the same way again. I haven't abandoned the word as the infallible word of God and the power of salvation, nor Jesus as the only true way to God. What I have learnt is that teaching the Bible is allowing God to speak so that people can hear. Postmodern thought is shallow, cynical, full of contradiction, but all pervasive. Instead of retreat, let's go on attack. Let's use postmodernism against itself, entering its world of thought and subverting it with the truth of the gospel. Why? Because we love the truth, and we love people too.
Introduction
Chris Edward's recent article in Essentials on church planting made me think: what do we do with people who don't want to be preached at? Churches may not be built on issues of musical style, but do we put hymnbook before praising God, prayer book before worshipping God, Anglicanism before faith? Most of my Christian growth was 30-40 minute sermons and the prayer book. So when we were planning an unchurched and youth friendly evening service, with 15-20 minute sermons, no prayer book, mostly modern songs and a data projector, I had to stretch myself a little. As a lay preacher, how could I be brief (when 30 minutes was easy for me), use a technology in church I had seen badly used, and let God speak to people's needs?
Postmodern pews
Before now, my three favorite thinkers on preaching have been Haddon Robinson, John Chapman and Peter Adam. To that list I must now add Graham Johnston and his book Preaching to a Postmodern World. That Robinson wrote the forward gave me hope, and I wasn't disappointed. In seven chapters he gives preachers an understanding of some of the issues of the postmodern mindset, issues we must recognise and deal with if we are to allow God's word to be heard. Chapter 1 illustrates Romans 12.2: that people in the pews can and do have postmodern ideas, even if they cannot articulate them as such. The all pervasive media presents a panoply of views, none of which is Christian, and it is naive to think people in the pews remain untouched by these. He challenges us to be lovers of people as well as truth, and to oppose postmodernism without retreating into modernism.
What is the postmodern mind?
Chapter 2 defines ten distinctives of postmodern thought: it's reacting to modernity, rejection of objective truth, suspicion of authority, search for community and transcendence, and it's living in a media world. Chapter 3 warns us to concentrate more on "what" rather than "how", not making the gospel weak which will actually drive people away. However, we must know our listeners to have impact, as Nathan knew David when rebuking his adultery. We must have an ethos of caring for our listeners, for this will come out in our non-verbal communication. And we must begin sermons in the secular, in the life experiences of the listeners, who might not care what Paul is saying in Colossians 2 unless it connects with where they are and is seen to be relevant.
Reaching postmoderns
Chapter 4 stresses the need to be more apologetic in preaching, while chapter 5 addresses some of the obstacles to biblical preaching, the "closed doors". In an age where no text is authoritative, simply stating that the Bible really is, is not as useful as allowing people to see for themselves that the Bible is true. Allow people to have doubts, ask questions and church to be a place where nonbelievers can come. Johnston illustrates this point well with the story of a man who although interested in spiritual ideas felt church was not a place for him, only for believers.
Johnston urges us not to flinch at the uniqueness of Jesus, but to teach it clearly and teach against the many other ideas that exist. In chapter 6 he moves from obstacles to inroads: the desire for spirituality but not religion, and the postmodern's yearning for community and hope. Finally, chapter 7 deals with the practicalities; the use of inductive preaching, story telling and a dialogical approach. This deals with Chris Edwards' concern, that we don't preach at people but communicate with them in a way that encourages them to think it through. Elsewhere Johnston calls this producing disciples, not just followers. He also urges the use of multimedia to present Christian values and thinking. After all, Hollywood uses it to present theirs!
Principles in practice
The more I read this book, the more I knew God had thought of it all first! Our sermon series was on "What is worship?". My text was not on how but on why: Romans 12.1. It speaks of spiritual worship. My theological side told me to explain what logikos meant, but my homiletical and now postmodern side told me to ask which they would prefer to be known as: spiritual or religious? A photograph of the Dalai Lama was used to show that people in society were interested in the former but not the latter - so why should we bother with church? A Larson cartoon of a cow standing on its hind legs saying "This is grass we've been eating!" highlighted the point - why do something unthinkingly? I wanted to address those who worshipped at church because of tradition, and those on the edge or from outside of the church who might simply ask "why bother?" So Romans 12.1 addresses postmodernism's interest in spirituality.
But is also addresses the cynicism about authority. How? Paul urges his readers as their brother (he uses adelphoi), but does not make demands as an apostle. It is not merely in view of God's mercy: a postmodern who is told God is merciful will say "so what?" Neither will saying "God has been merciful to me" help, for the postmodern will say "whatever works for you." But Paul appealed to his readers by means of God's mercies (dia), that is God's mercies are instrumental in his appeal. Tell people what you are saying is based on and indeed is part of God's mercies to them and they will listen.
To explain mercy, I showed a picture of the World Trade Centre in flames, a powerful and potentially dangerous illustration to use. Where had they been when it happened? What were they doing? How did they feel? Did they want justice? Questions to get them in, so what is justice? Does God really exist, and if he does why doesn't he do something? But what if he did? Where does justice stop and who decides what needs judging? Jesus said anger was as bad as murder, so do only suicide bombers need judging or will it include us? Without justice, mercy has no meaning, but in the cross both justice and mercy are shown. Evil isn't the illusion that Buddhism says it is, but a problem of the human heart, which God has dealt with in the cross.
Another postmodern concern is pragmatism, what does it mean for me? Is it relevant? Spiritual worship is being a living sacrifice, not being "too heavenly minded to be of any earthly use". The whole of life can and should be worship: work, play and church. An illustration from my own life was helpful - for the postmodern preacher is willing to share from his or her own life. A Sunday morning call from work would be met with my scorn, for I am an employee in office hours only. However, when my unborn child grows up, will they cease to be my child when they are 30 and are in need? Just as I'll never stop being a dad, leaving church doesn't mean I stop being a worshipper.
Preaching transformed
I'll never view the preaching task the same way again. I haven't abandoned the word as the infallible word of God and the power of salvation, nor Jesus as the only true way to God. What I have learnt is that teaching the Bible is allowing God to speak so that people can hear. Postmodern thought is shallow, cynical, full of contradiction, but all pervasive. Instead of retreat, let's go on attack. Let's use postmodernism against itself, entering its world of thought and subverting it with the truth of the gospel. Why? Because we love the truth, and we love people too.
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
Inerrancy
The bible is an immensely important book to Christians, which is I guess why we are always fighting amongst ourselves about it. Here is an essay I did for a theology subject on inerrancy, the idea that the Bible is free from all error.
Abstract
On the surface, the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy and the affirmation of Stanley Grenz have much in common. Both affirm the trustworthiness of Scripture. However, Grenz’s emphasis is on trustworthiness and not on a modernist definition of inerrancy. Chicago stands much closer to Warfield’s position.
This essay proceeds from this comparison to show that history does not validate the Warfield school, and further that the fundamentalist position is a manifestation of modernism. The Bible does not support such a doctrine as formulated by Chicago or Warfield, neither in its direct teaching nor in its phenomena. Furthermore, many Evangelicals support a trustworthiness view of Scripture that focuses on the purposes and agendas of the God who authored it through human writers, namely the making wise for salvation. Scripture is the authoritative narrative that energies the Christian life by announcing the kingdom of God.
Grenz on inerrancy
Grenz affirms that inerrancy can be a valuable term, properly understood. Firstly, he cites the proper role of deductive and inductive reasoning[1]. A deductive argument may be written as:
P1: God cannot lie
P2: Scripture is inspired by God
C: Scripture cannot lie, i.e. it is inerrant
Inerrantists insist that this is a sound and valid argument[2]. Grenz prefers an inductive approach to allow the bible to speak to these issues rather than applying an a priori assumption or definition. What is required is to ask what the authors purpose was in writing, and what in their mind is an adequate level of accuracy.
An inappropriate understanding for Grenz is a requirement for the biblical authors to meet modern scientific understandings of precision. The biblical writers used phenomenological language and wrote from the perspective of their day. Inerrancy therefore addresses the context in which statements are made. This context also includes the genre of the material, whether it is apocalyptic, prophecy, narrative, wisdom, etc.
For Grenz, the purpose of Scripture is best stated by 2 Tim 3.16. All Scripture is theopneustos and useful for instruction and transformation (Rm 12.1-2), so that we live the Christian life. The Old Testament was written for our instruction, encouragement and hope (Rm 15.4) and as an example to us (1 Cor 10.6, 11). This purpose is fulfilled within a narrative framework that speaks of the Messiah coming to save lost, sinful humans[3]. It would therefore be inappropriate to suggest that inerrancy should extend to the method of creation. The fact that God created the heavens and the earth is well established by the two creation stories, and the contrast and context of pagan creation stories is well noted. To suggest that modern cosmology and evolutionary biology present challenges to the authority of the bible is to apply modernist criteria to the inerrancy of the text, ignore the context (genre, culture) and purpose of the account.
Furthermore, error in the biblical sense is primarily moral and theological, not modernist factual error. Psalm 95.10 speaks of hearts going astray (cf. Jas 5.20). Proverbs equates a lack of knowledge with ethical behaviour and a right attitude towards God[4]. Therefore, to insist that the bible has a doctrine of inerrancy that refers to facts is an inappropriate use of the term.
Thirdly, Grenz insists that inerrancy is not necessary for a view of Scripture as authoritative. He notes that translations are seen as authoritative[5].
Given these caveats, Grenz sees inerrancy as affirming the Spirit’s instrumentality and the trustworthiness of Scripture. This begs the question of why we cannot simply abandon the term in favour of trustworthiness.
Grenz & Chicago
The authors of the Chicago statement affirm the “total truth and trustworthiness of Holy Scripture[6]”. At first glance, this appears similar to Grenz. However, the Statement employs deduction[7]. Its view of inerrancy includes all matters upon which Scripture touches[8], “‘inerrant’ signifies the quality of being free from all falsehood or mistake and so safeguards the truth that Holy Scripture is entirely true and trustworthy in all its assertions[9]”. This is inconsistent with Grenz’s focuses on the goals of Scripture.
In attempting to safeguard the definition from criticism, the authors acknowledge genre, and lack of scientific precision[10]. Inerrancy is “making good its claims and attaining that measure of focussed truth”. There is a double standard in that whilst the Statement doesn’t require scientific accuracy, it insists that passages make scientific claims.
Inerrancy is linked to plenary, verbal inspiration[11]. Infallibility and inerrancy are distinguishable but not separable[12]. For Grenz, the two are related insofar as God’s word is trustworthy. However, he affirms that one can view Scripture as authoritative without being inerrant; Chicago makes them interdependent[13]. Further, there are grave consequences for abandoning inerrancy[14], since it safeguards “crucial positive truths[15]”.
Grenz’s allows translations to be inerrant, but Chicago limits this to the autographs[16]. To extend authority to extant documents relies the texts being “amazingly well preserved[17]”. However, the Statement’s various caveats would seem to undermine this.
The rise of inerrancy
The above shows that there is more than one Evangelical option on inerrancy. Erickson[18] lists seven: absolute (cf. Warfield), full, limited, of purpose, accommodated revelation, non-propositional revelation and inerrancy as irrelevant. Inerrancy claims a long pedigree. Clement of Rome stated ‘nothing iniquitous or falsified is written’, and Augustine declared ‘none of these (canonical) authors has erred in any respect of writing.[19]’, either deliberately or through forgetfulness[20]. However, Origen and Luther were untroubled by discrepancies[21]. Wesley could tolerate factual mistakes but not doctrinal error[22]. Goldingay claims that this was the norm until the 19th century[23].
Inerrancy is now a test of orthodoxy for some[24] due to the inroads of higher criticism, and the fact that many defenders were Dispensationalists[25], where inerrancy is “of biblical facts” and “infallibility of biblical truth”[26].
The methodology of inerrancy is a prior commitment to foundationalist epistemology[27], together with a propositional theory of language[28], which insists upon absolute certainty. Inerrancy becomes the first principle in theology[29] rather than a necessary inference from it. The Bible becomes superfluous once the perfect system of theology is constructed[30], which is then the source of our faith[31]. Inerrancy brings Scripture under human reason[32], the pagan principle of independent judgement[33] and substitutes “some idolatrous a priori” for revelation[34]. Hence, the doctrine reflects the prejudices of the reader[35].
For Dockery, inerrancy is deduced as “a direct implication and important corollary of the direct teaching about Scripture’s inspiration[36]”. Inerrantists insist that the doctrine should be established from doctrines of Scripture, and not the phenomena. Disgreement exists as to whether induction can be included, hence Erickson[37] or pure deduction only[38]. Moreland even suggests that induction can involve the assumption of inerrancy as evidence[39]. Howeverfor inerrancy to have a biblical meaning, it should be defined inductively[40] from the phenomena of Scripture.
Inerrancy and biblical phenomena
Apparent contradictions in Scripture, both textual and with modern science which must be addressed[41]. Erickson lists five strategies: 1) doctrine trumps evidence (Warfield and Packer[42]?), 2) harmonisation, 3) moderate harmonisation (Erickson[43]), 4) inerrant recording of sources errors, 5) errancy.
Moderate harmonisation shows epistemological humility and an eschatological hope so that not all problems will find their resolution now. Further, it does not abandon Scripture to critical scholarship:
“[Jesus] teaching in the gospels includes quotations from ‘Moses’, ‘David’ and ‘Isaiah’ which few modern scholars would attribute to those historical persons[44]”.
Edwards makes this move too readily. Numerous problems disappear when we allow ourselves to look for creative and reasonable solutions[45]. However, some textual difficulties do not disappear easily[46]. In the face of these, Beegle warns against ignoring the phenomena in preference for the teaching[47], nor to ignore science that causes us to ignore the clear meaning of passages[48]. A prior commitment to inerrancy produces problematic, ad hoc hamonisations such as those of Lindsell[49], and sometimes disregards usual standards of evidence[50].
Inerrancy in retreat
It is possible to claim that inerrancy applies only to matters of faith: “the infallible and necessary rule of truth”[51]. Calvin stated that Genesis 1 taught theology, not science[52], but this is an appeal to authorial intent and falls into the “intentional fallacy”[53]. If we do not allow Scripture to address all areas of knowledge[54], do we risk dualism? Do we say the Bible is truthful and authoritative on every subject which it teaches but not touches[55] or that to “disbelieve or disobey any word in Scripture is to disbelieve or disobey God”[56]?
Another issue is that of the autographs. Grisnati[57] is forced to stretch the definition of OT autograph to cover all of the editing prior to the closing of canon[58]. He denies that this is a redefinition of inerrancy, since changes were only of grammar or place names, and they were prophetic figures that made them. This prophetic requirement bears close resemblance to conservative arguments against pseudonymity[59].
2 Tim 3.16 is a key passage for inerrancy, but this argument misses the point of Scripture[60], which is to make us wise for salvation. The appeal to origin serves to preclude a deceptive function or a misleading result[61]. Although overstating the case, Achtermeier says “it is not about the nature of Scripture but the nature of Scripture for the purpose of aiding the Christian life”[62].
Another key idea is the understanding of prophecy in 2 Pet 1.21. However, feromenois far broader in meaning than Warfield’s restrictive usage[63]. Further, Goldingay warns that whilst stretching the concept of inspiration from prophecy to other genres has biblical warrant[64], to apply inerrancy to narrative is not[65]. Prophecy comes very close to dictation, but few inerrantists would apply this to narrative[66]. Likewise, Beegle sees degrees of inspiration with different purposes, whilst all the time being the word of God[67].
Re-imaging inerrancy
Grenz calls his modified inerrancy trustworthiness, which is similar to Farrow’s functional inerrancy and Garrett’s[68] dependability. Just as Grenz focuses on the purpose of Scripture (2 Tim 3), so Farrow suggests that “Scripture does not fail to speak truly in addressing man on behalf of God[69]”, unaffected by “trivialities which may be in error[70]”. I favour the term trustworthiness, since this is the opposite of inerrant, not “errancy”.
The church’s confidence in the Bible rests in Christ’s Lordship[71], since in it we meets with God and he talks with us. It points beyond itself to this triune God[72]. The Bible is defined by the fact that God has given it to the church[73], not to collect doctrines but to know him. When God chooses to reveal himself to the reader, this occurs by his will, not reason. Hence, illumination is just as decisive a moment in the process of revelation as inspiration[74]. This is a “dynamic infallibilism[75]”, by which the divine will trumps subjectivism[76]. The objectivism of Scripture lies with God.
N.T. Wright emphasises narrative. Scripture has authority in a delegated sense[77], because authority resides with God and his kingdom[78]. Scripture is a story with authority, a narrative that brings us up to date with what God has done in establishing this kingdom, and setting the scene for us to carry out the next act[79]. Scripture’s authority does not forbid questioning but requires it of each generation[80].
Inerrancy, life & ministry
Inerrancy is a fruitless search for certainty. Trustworthiness is the character that our loving God has, and is central to the Christian faith. However, if we abandon inerrancy, how can we trust his word? What becomes of apologetics?
Firstly, we can get on with the task of living the Christian life, and recovering the bible as our spiritual sustenance. We come to the text with the expectation that we will meet God, and be energised to live for his kingdom. We can know that what he says is true and effective for this task. Inerrancy do not contribute to this[81].
Secondly, since our faith is place in God and not in inerrancy, our faith need not stumble over minor issues. Likewise, apologetics does not lie in solving every problem. Although a valuable exercise, apologetics must ultimately rest, not on inerrancy but on the person of Christ. The slippery slope argument advanced by inerrantists only works if one is pre-committed to empirical/rationalism[82]. We no longer need to waste time trying to account for Pekah’s reign[83] to defend the resurrection as if the two could be equated[84]. Belief in some facts carries more theological weight (1 Cor 15.14)
The end of the matter is this: God can be trusted with certainty, his word communicates what we need to know to serve him in the world, some difficulties may remain, others lie waiting for careful exegesis.
References
Paul J Achtemeir, Inspiration and Authority: Nature and Function of Christian Scripture, Hendrickon Publishers, Peabody, Massachusetts, 1999.
Mike Adler, “How to be much cleverer than all your friends (so they really hate you)”, Philosophy Now, June/July 2005.
Vincent E. Bacote, Laura C. Miguelez and Dennis L. Okholm (eds), Evangelicals & Scripture: Tradition, Authority and Hermeneutics, Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2004.
John Bartkowski, Beyond Biblical Literalism and Inerrancy: Conservative Protestants and the Hermeneutic Interpretation of Scripture, Sociology of Religion 1996, 57:3, 259-272.
Dewey Beegle, Inerrancy and the Phenomena of Scripture, in Readings in Christian Theology, Volume I The Living God, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1973.
Dewey M Beegle, Scripture, Tradition and Infallibility, William B Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1973.
Donald G. Bloesch, Holy Scripture: Revelation, Inspiration & Interpretation, Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press,1994.
David S Dockery, Christian Scripture: An Evangelical Perspective on Inspiration, Authority and Interpretation, Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1995.
David L. Edwards with John Stott, Essentials: A liberal-evangelical dialogue, London, Sydney, Auckland: Hodder & Stoughton, 1988
Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, Second Edition, Baker Books, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1998.
Douglas Farrow, The Word of Truth and Disputes About Words, Carpenter Books, Winona Lake, Indiana, 1987.
Sinclair B. Ferguson and David F Wright (eds), New Dictionary of Theology, Inter Varsity Press, Leicester, England/ Downers Grove, Illinois, 1988.
James Leo Garrett, Jr, Systematic Theology: Biblical, Historical and Evangelical, Vol. 1, Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1990.
Norman L Geisler (ed), Inerrancy, The Zondervan Corporation, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1979.
John Goldingay, Models for Scripture, William B Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1994.
Stanley Grenz, Theology for the Community of God, Wm B Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2000.
Michael A Grisnati, Inspiration, Inerrancy, and the OT Canon: The Place of Textual Updating in an Inerrant View of Scripture, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Dec 44/4, 2001: 277-298.
Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press/ Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1994.
Harold Lindsell., The Case of the Molten Sea, in The Battle for the Bible, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1976.
George Marsden, Reforming Fundamentalism: Fuller Seminary and the New Evangelicalism, William B Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1987.
Bruce L. McCormack, The Being of Holy Scripture is in Becoming: Karl Barth in Conversation with American Evangelical Criticism, Tenth Annual Wheaton Theology Conference Wheaton College, April 5, 2001.
Douglas Moo (Gen. Ed.), Biblical Authority and Conservative Perspectives: Viewpoints from Trinity Journal, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Publications, 1997.
Nancey Murphy, Beyond Liberalism & Fundamentalism: How Modern and Postmodern Philosophy Set the Theological Agenda, Trinity Press International, Valley Forge, PA, 1996.
J.I. Packer, Beyond the Battle for the Bible, Westchester, Illinois: Cornerstone Books, 1980.
N.T. Wright, Scripture and the Authority of God, 2005, SPCK, London.
The Proceedings of the Conference on Biblical Inerrance 1987, Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press, 1987.
[1] Stanley Grenz, Theology for the Community of God, Wm B Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2000, p401.
[2] For a useful introduction to concepts of validity and soundness in syllogisms, see Mike Adler’s article “How to be much cleverer than all your friends (so they really hate you) in the June/July 2005 issue of Philosophy Now.
[3] Although this is too narrow a focus, to limit the biblical narrative simply to personal salvation. See N.T. Wright, Scripture and the Authority of God, SPCK, London, 2005
[4] E.g. Ps 1.29; 2.6-10. See also Ps 14.1.
[5] It is generally believed that most Palestinian Jews used the LXX, and that including by the 2 Tim 3.16 is a reference to the LXX. Why Grenz cannot affirm that Paul wrote this letter is not discussed!
[6] International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, The Chicago Statement on Inerrancy, 1978, Chicago, Illinois, p5.
[7] Chicago Statement, summary statements 1 and 2.
[8] Chicago Statement, statement 3, including all matters in creation (statement 4) such as the creation of the world and the Flood (Article XII).
[9] Chicago Statement, p12.
[10] Chicago Statement, p12.
[11] Chicago Statement, statement 4, articles VI, IX.
[12] Chicago Statement, article XI.
[13] Chicago Statement, statement 5.
[14] Chicago Statement , article XIX.
[15] Chicago Statement, p11.
[16] Chicago Statement, article X.
[17] Chicago Statement, p12.
[18] Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, Second Edition, Baker Books, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1998, p248.
[19] Sinclair B. Ferguson and David F Wright (eds), New Dictionary of Theology, Inter Varsity Press, Leicester, England/ Downers Grove, Illinois, 1988, p337.
[20] John Goldingay, Models for Scripture, William B Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1994, p262.
[21] Goldingay, p262-263.
[22] “If there be any mistakes in the bible, there may well be a thousand. If there be one falsehood in that book, it did not come from the God of truth”. Goldingay, p264.
[23] Goldingay, p265.
[24] Note that Paul D Feinberg in his essay The Meaning of Inerrancy in Norman L Geisler (ed), Inerrancy, The Zondervan Corporation, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1979, p269 takes it for granted that inerrancy is orthodoxy (before he even defines it).
[25] Whose obsession with the absolute accuracy of numbers insists upon inerrancy of every detail. George Marsden, Reforming Fundamentalism: Fuller Seminary and the New Evangelicalism, William B Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1987, p112.
[26] Quote from H D McDonald, Goldingay, p267.
[27] Nancey Murphy, Beyond Liberalism & Fundamentalism: How Modern and Postmodern Philosophy Set the Theological Agenda, Trinity Press International, Valley Forge, PA, 1996, p16.
[28] Such as is found in Hodge, so Murphy, p42.
[29] Bloesch, p96. Farrow, p126.
[30] Stanley Grenz, ”Nurturing the Soul, Informing the Mind: The Genesis of the Scripture Principle”, in Vincent E. Bacote, Laura C. Miguelez and Dennis L. Okholm (eds), Evangelicals & Scripture: Tradition, Authority and Hermeneutics, Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2004, p41.
[31] Douglas Farrow, The Word of Truth and Disputes About Words, Carpenter Books, Winona Lake, Indiana, 1987, p128.
[32] Bloesch, p91.
[33] Farrow, p139.
[34] Farrow, p28.
[35] John Bartkowski, Beyond Biblical Literalism and Inerrancy: Conservative Protestants and the Hermeneutic Interpretation of Scripture, Sociology of Religion 1996, 57:3, 259-272.
[36] Dockery, p66.
[37] Erickson, Christian Theology, p255f.
[38] Referring to Norman Geisler. Farrow, 273.
[39] J.P. Moreland, “The Rationality Of Belief In Inerrancy”, in Douglas Moo (Gen. Ed.), Biblical Authority and Conservative Perspectives: Viewpoints from Trinity Journal, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Publications, 1997, 159.
[40] Grenz, p401.
[41] Donald G. Bloesch, Holy Scripture: Revelation, Inspiration & Interpretation, Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1994, p94.
[42] J.I. Packer, Beyond the Battle for the Bible, Westchester, Illinois: Cornerstone Books, 1980, p56.
[43] Erickson, p258.
[44] To which we might add, all the worse for those scholars. David L. Edwards with John Stott, Essentials: A liberal-evangelical dialogue, London, Sydney, Auckland: Hodder & Stoughton, 1988, p56.
[45] Jesus using material more than once, multiple perspectives on events providing differences in accounts, abandoning Markan priority for Markan dependence, etc.
[46] Such as Jude’s issue of the Apocrypha or Stephen’s speech and its reference to Abram.
[47] “If we try to hold to the teaching of Scripture in preference to the phenomena, are we not saying in effect, “Determine the Biblical writers’ doctrine of inspiration from what they say, not what they do”? The true Biblical view of inspiration must account for all the evidence of Scripture”. Dewey Beegle, Inerrancy and the Phenomena of Scripture, in Readings in Christian Theology, Volume I The Living God, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1973, p249f..
[48] For example, Genesis 5. Beegle, p202-203.
[49] Harold Lindsell., The Case of the Molten Sea, in The Battle for the Bible, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1976.
[50] Goldingay, p269.
[51] A quote from Wyclif in Goldingay, p272.
[52] Goldingay, p272.
[53] That is, how do we know an intention of a writer? Goldingay, p270.
[54] David S Dockery, Christian Scripture: An Evangelical Perspective on Inspiration, Authority and Interpretation, Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1995, p66.
[55] Millard J. Erickson, "Problem Areas Related to Biblical Inerrancy" and Responses in The Proceedings of the Conference on Biblical Inerrance 1987, Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press, 1987, p183.
[56] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press/ Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1994, p90.
[57] Michael A Grisnati, Inspiration, Inerrancy, and the OT Canon: The Place of Textual Updating in an Inerrant View of Scripture, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Dec 44/4, 2001: 277-298.
[58] Grisnati, p590f.
[59] If deutero-Isaiah were an important prophetic figure, why is he unnamed? Likewise, if unnamed prophets updated Isaiah, surely it is deception for them to claim it is his work alone?
[60] Grenz, 401.
[61] Farrow, p96.
[62] Paul J Achtemeir, Inspiration and Authority: Nature and Function of Christian Scripture, Hendrickon Publishers, Peabody, Massachusetts, 1999, p94.
[63] Farrow, p98-9.
[64] Goldingay, p274.
[65] Goldingay, p275.
[66] Goldingay, p276.
[67] Dewey M Beegle, Scripture, Tradition and Infallibility, William B Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1973, p207.
[68] James Leo Garrett, Jr, Systematic Theology: Biblical, Historical and Evangelical, Vol. 1, Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1990, p167.
[69] Farrow, p219.
[70] Farrow, p222.
[71] Farrow, p217.
[72] Farrow, pp34, 150.
[73] McCormack, p6.
[74] Bruce L. McCormack, The Being of Holy Scripture is in Becoming: Karl Barth in Conversation with American Evangelical Criticism, Tenth Annual Wheaton Theology Conference Wheaton College, April 5, 2001, p6.
[75] McCormack, p14.
[76] McCormack, p13.
[77] Wright, p18.
[78] Wright, p24.
[79] Wright, p19. Note that publicly Wright has stated that this is working in the kingdom, not for it in the sense of building it.
[80] Wright, p67-8.
[81] Goldingay, p278.
[82] Farrow, p148.
[83] Under the assumption that if we abandon inerrancy so that we don’t have to defend the account of Pekah’s reign (because we do not believe it), then we can’t defend (or it is made more difficult to defend) the resurrection. Geisler, p280.
[84] Geisler appears to confuse notitia with assensus. If I think that there is a problem with Pekah’s reign length, it is not because I do not believe the bible, contra Geisler and Grudem, but because there is a genuine mistake.
Abstract
On the surface, the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy and the affirmation of Stanley Grenz have much in common. Both affirm the trustworthiness of Scripture. However, Grenz’s emphasis is on trustworthiness and not on a modernist definition of inerrancy. Chicago stands much closer to Warfield’s position.
This essay proceeds from this comparison to show that history does not validate the Warfield school, and further that the fundamentalist position is a manifestation of modernism. The Bible does not support such a doctrine as formulated by Chicago or Warfield, neither in its direct teaching nor in its phenomena. Furthermore, many Evangelicals support a trustworthiness view of Scripture that focuses on the purposes and agendas of the God who authored it through human writers, namely the making wise for salvation. Scripture is the authoritative narrative that energies the Christian life by announcing the kingdom of God.
Grenz on inerrancy
Grenz affirms that inerrancy can be a valuable term, properly understood. Firstly, he cites the proper role of deductive and inductive reasoning[1]. A deductive argument may be written as:
P1: God cannot lie
P2: Scripture is inspired by God
C: Scripture cannot lie, i.e. it is inerrant
Inerrantists insist that this is a sound and valid argument[2]. Grenz prefers an inductive approach to allow the bible to speak to these issues rather than applying an a priori assumption or definition. What is required is to ask what the authors purpose was in writing, and what in their mind is an adequate level of accuracy.
An inappropriate understanding for Grenz is a requirement for the biblical authors to meet modern scientific understandings of precision. The biblical writers used phenomenological language and wrote from the perspective of their day. Inerrancy therefore addresses the context in which statements are made. This context also includes the genre of the material, whether it is apocalyptic, prophecy, narrative, wisdom, etc.
For Grenz, the purpose of Scripture is best stated by 2 Tim 3.16. All Scripture is theopneustos and useful for instruction and transformation (Rm 12.1-2), so that we live the Christian life. The Old Testament was written for our instruction, encouragement and hope (Rm 15.4) and as an example to us (1 Cor 10.6, 11). This purpose is fulfilled within a narrative framework that speaks of the Messiah coming to save lost, sinful humans[3]. It would therefore be inappropriate to suggest that inerrancy should extend to the method of creation. The fact that God created the heavens and the earth is well established by the two creation stories, and the contrast and context of pagan creation stories is well noted. To suggest that modern cosmology and evolutionary biology present challenges to the authority of the bible is to apply modernist criteria to the inerrancy of the text, ignore the context (genre, culture) and purpose of the account.
Furthermore, error in the biblical sense is primarily moral and theological, not modernist factual error. Psalm 95.10 speaks of hearts going astray (cf. Jas 5.20). Proverbs equates a lack of knowledge with ethical behaviour and a right attitude towards God[4]. Therefore, to insist that the bible has a doctrine of inerrancy that refers to facts is an inappropriate use of the term.
Thirdly, Grenz insists that inerrancy is not necessary for a view of Scripture as authoritative. He notes that translations are seen as authoritative[5].
Given these caveats, Grenz sees inerrancy as affirming the Spirit’s instrumentality and the trustworthiness of Scripture. This begs the question of why we cannot simply abandon the term in favour of trustworthiness.
Grenz & Chicago
The authors of the Chicago statement affirm the “total truth and trustworthiness of Holy Scripture[6]”. At first glance, this appears similar to Grenz. However, the Statement employs deduction[7]. Its view of inerrancy includes all matters upon which Scripture touches[8], “‘inerrant’ signifies the quality of being free from all falsehood or mistake and so safeguards the truth that Holy Scripture is entirely true and trustworthy in all its assertions[9]”. This is inconsistent with Grenz’s focuses on the goals of Scripture.
In attempting to safeguard the definition from criticism, the authors acknowledge genre, and lack of scientific precision[10]. Inerrancy is “making good its claims and attaining that measure of focussed truth”. There is a double standard in that whilst the Statement doesn’t require scientific accuracy, it insists that passages make scientific claims.
Inerrancy is linked to plenary, verbal inspiration[11]. Infallibility and inerrancy are distinguishable but not separable[12]. For Grenz, the two are related insofar as God’s word is trustworthy. However, he affirms that one can view Scripture as authoritative without being inerrant; Chicago makes them interdependent[13]. Further, there are grave consequences for abandoning inerrancy[14], since it safeguards “crucial positive truths[15]”.
Grenz’s allows translations to be inerrant, but Chicago limits this to the autographs[16]. To extend authority to extant documents relies the texts being “amazingly well preserved[17]”. However, the Statement’s various caveats would seem to undermine this.
The rise of inerrancy
The above shows that there is more than one Evangelical option on inerrancy. Erickson[18] lists seven: absolute (cf. Warfield), full, limited, of purpose, accommodated revelation, non-propositional revelation and inerrancy as irrelevant. Inerrancy claims a long pedigree. Clement of Rome stated ‘nothing iniquitous or falsified is written’, and Augustine declared ‘none of these (canonical) authors has erred in any respect of writing.[19]’, either deliberately or through forgetfulness[20]. However, Origen and Luther were untroubled by discrepancies[21]. Wesley could tolerate factual mistakes but not doctrinal error[22]. Goldingay claims that this was the norm until the 19th century[23].
Inerrancy is now a test of orthodoxy for some[24] due to the inroads of higher criticism, and the fact that many defenders were Dispensationalists[25], where inerrancy is “of biblical facts” and “infallibility of biblical truth”[26].
The methodology of inerrancy is a prior commitment to foundationalist epistemology[27], together with a propositional theory of language[28], which insists upon absolute certainty. Inerrancy becomes the first principle in theology[29] rather than a necessary inference from it. The Bible becomes superfluous once the perfect system of theology is constructed[30], which is then the source of our faith[31]. Inerrancy brings Scripture under human reason[32], the pagan principle of independent judgement[33] and substitutes “some idolatrous a priori” for revelation[34]. Hence, the doctrine reflects the prejudices of the reader[35].
For Dockery, inerrancy is deduced as “a direct implication and important corollary of the direct teaching about Scripture’s inspiration[36]”. Inerrantists insist that the doctrine should be established from doctrines of Scripture, and not the phenomena. Disgreement exists as to whether induction can be included, hence Erickson[37] or pure deduction only[38]. Moreland even suggests that induction can involve the assumption of inerrancy as evidence[39]. Howeverfor inerrancy to have a biblical meaning, it should be defined inductively[40] from the phenomena of Scripture.
Inerrancy and biblical phenomena
Apparent contradictions in Scripture, both textual and with modern science which must be addressed[41]. Erickson lists five strategies: 1) doctrine trumps evidence (Warfield and Packer[42]?), 2) harmonisation, 3) moderate harmonisation (Erickson[43]), 4) inerrant recording of sources errors, 5) errancy.
Moderate harmonisation shows epistemological humility and an eschatological hope so that not all problems will find their resolution now. Further, it does not abandon Scripture to critical scholarship:
“[Jesus] teaching in the gospels includes quotations from ‘Moses’, ‘David’ and ‘Isaiah’ which few modern scholars would attribute to those historical persons[44]”.
Edwards makes this move too readily. Numerous problems disappear when we allow ourselves to look for creative and reasonable solutions[45]. However, some textual difficulties do not disappear easily[46]. In the face of these, Beegle warns against ignoring the phenomena in preference for the teaching[47], nor to ignore science that causes us to ignore the clear meaning of passages[48]. A prior commitment to inerrancy produces problematic, ad hoc hamonisations such as those of Lindsell[49], and sometimes disregards usual standards of evidence[50].
Inerrancy in retreat
It is possible to claim that inerrancy applies only to matters of faith: “the infallible and necessary rule of truth”[51]. Calvin stated that Genesis 1 taught theology, not science[52], but this is an appeal to authorial intent and falls into the “intentional fallacy”[53]. If we do not allow Scripture to address all areas of knowledge[54], do we risk dualism? Do we say the Bible is truthful and authoritative on every subject which it teaches but not touches[55] or that to “disbelieve or disobey any word in Scripture is to disbelieve or disobey God”[56]?
Another issue is that of the autographs. Grisnati[57] is forced to stretch the definition of OT autograph to cover all of the editing prior to the closing of canon[58]. He denies that this is a redefinition of inerrancy, since changes were only of grammar or place names, and they were prophetic figures that made them. This prophetic requirement bears close resemblance to conservative arguments against pseudonymity[59].
2 Tim 3.16 is a key passage for inerrancy, but this argument misses the point of Scripture[60], which is to make us wise for salvation. The appeal to origin serves to preclude a deceptive function or a misleading result[61]. Although overstating the case, Achtermeier says “it is not about the nature of Scripture but the nature of Scripture for the purpose of aiding the Christian life”[62].
Another key idea is the understanding of prophecy in 2 Pet 1.21. However, feromenois far broader in meaning than Warfield’s restrictive usage[63]. Further, Goldingay warns that whilst stretching the concept of inspiration from prophecy to other genres has biblical warrant[64], to apply inerrancy to narrative is not[65]. Prophecy comes very close to dictation, but few inerrantists would apply this to narrative[66]. Likewise, Beegle sees degrees of inspiration with different purposes, whilst all the time being the word of God[67].
Re-imaging inerrancy
Grenz calls his modified inerrancy trustworthiness, which is similar to Farrow’s functional inerrancy and Garrett’s[68] dependability. Just as Grenz focuses on the purpose of Scripture (2 Tim 3), so Farrow suggests that “Scripture does not fail to speak truly in addressing man on behalf of God[69]”, unaffected by “trivialities which may be in error[70]”. I favour the term trustworthiness, since this is the opposite of inerrant, not “errancy”.
The church’s confidence in the Bible rests in Christ’s Lordship[71], since in it we meets with God and he talks with us. It points beyond itself to this triune God[72]. The Bible is defined by the fact that God has given it to the church[73], not to collect doctrines but to know him. When God chooses to reveal himself to the reader, this occurs by his will, not reason. Hence, illumination is just as decisive a moment in the process of revelation as inspiration[74]. This is a “dynamic infallibilism[75]”, by which the divine will trumps subjectivism[76]. The objectivism of Scripture lies with God.
N.T. Wright emphasises narrative. Scripture has authority in a delegated sense[77], because authority resides with God and his kingdom[78]. Scripture is a story with authority, a narrative that brings us up to date with what God has done in establishing this kingdom, and setting the scene for us to carry out the next act[79]. Scripture’s authority does not forbid questioning but requires it of each generation[80].
Inerrancy, life & ministry
Inerrancy is a fruitless search for certainty. Trustworthiness is the character that our loving God has, and is central to the Christian faith. However, if we abandon inerrancy, how can we trust his word? What becomes of apologetics?
Firstly, we can get on with the task of living the Christian life, and recovering the bible as our spiritual sustenance. We come to the text with the expectation that we will meet God, and be energised to live for his kingdom. We can know that what he says is true and effective for this task. Inerrancy do not contribute to this[81].
Secondly, since our faith is place in God and not in inerrancy, our faith need not stumble over minor issues. Likewise, apologetics does not lie in solving every problem. Although a valuable exercise, apologetics must ultimately rest, not on inerrancy but on the person of Christ. The slippery slope argument advanced by inerrantists only works if one is pre-committed to empirical/rationalism[82]. We no longer need to waste time trying to account for Pekah’s reign[83] to defend the resurrection as if the two could be equated[84]. Belief in some facts carries more theological weight (1 Cor 15.14)
The end of the matter is this: God can be trusted with certainty, his word communicates what we need to know to serve him in the world, some difficulties may remain, others lie waiting for careful exegesis.
References
Paul J Achtemeir, Inspiration and Authority: Nature and Function of Christian Scripture, Hendrickon Publishers, Peabody, Massachusetts, 1999.
Mike Adler, “How to be much cleverer than all your friends (so they really hate you)”, Philosophy Now, June/July 2005.
Vincent E. Bacote, Laura C. Miguelez and Dennis L. Okholm (eds), Evangelicals & Scripture: Tradition, Authority and Hermeneutics, Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2004.
John Bartkowski, Beyond Biblical Literalism and Inerrancy: Conservative Protestants and the Hermeneutic Interpretation of Scripture, Sociology of Religion 1996, 57:3, 259-272.
Dewey Beegle, Inerrancy and the Phenomena of Scripture, in Readings in Christian Theology, Volume I The Living God, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1973.
Dewey M Beegle, Scripture, Tradition and Infallibility, William B Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1973.
Donald G. Bloesch, Holy Scripture: Revelation, Inspiration & Interpretation, Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press,1994.
David S Dockery, Christian Scripture: An Evangelical Perspective on Inspiration, Authority and Interpretation, Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1995.
David L. Edwards with John Stott, Essentials: A liberal-evangelical dialogue, London, Sydney, Auckland: Hodder & Stoughton, 1988
Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, Second Edition, Baker Books, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1998.
Douglas Farrow, The Word of Truth and Disputes About Words, Carpenter Books, Winona Lake, Indiana, 1987.
Sinclair B. Ferguson and David F Wright (eds), New Dictionary of Theology, Inter Varsity Press, Leicester, England/ Downers Grove, Illinois, 1988.
James Leo Garrett, Jr, Systematic Theology: Biblical, Historical and Evangelical, Vol. 1, Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1990.
Norman L Geisler (ed), Inerrancy, The Zondervan Corporation, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1979.
John Goldingay, Models for Scripture, William B Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1994.
Stanley Grenz, Theology for the Community of God, Wm B Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2000.
Michael A Grisnati, Inspiration, Inerrancy, and the OT Canon: The Place of Textual Updating in an Inerrant View of Scripture, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Dec 44/4, 2001: 277-298.
Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press/ Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1994.
Harold Lindsell., The Case of the Molten Sea, in The Battle for the Bible, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1976.
George Marsden, Reforming Fundamentalism: Fuller Seminary and the New Evangelicalism, William B Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1987.
Bruce L. McCormack, The Being of Holy Scripture is in Becoming: Karl Barth in Conversation with American Evangelical Criticism, Tenth Annual Wheaton Theology Conference Wheaton College, April 5, 2001.
Douglas Moo (Gen. Ed.), Biblical Authority and Conservative Perspectives: Viewpoints from Trinity Journal, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Publications, 1997.
Nancey Murphy, Beyond Liberalism & Fundamentalism: How Modern and Postmodern Philosophy Set the Theological Agenda, Trinity Press International, Valley Forge, PA, 1996.
J.I. Packer, Beyond the Battle for the Bible, Westchester, Illinois: Cornerstone Books, 1980.
N.T. Wright, Scripture and the Authority of God, 2005, SPCK, London.
The Proceedings of the Conference on Biblical Inerrance 1987, Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press, 1987.
[1] Stanley Grenz, Theology for the Community of God, Wm B Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2000, p401.
[2] For a useful introduction to concepts of validity and soundness in syllogisms, see Mike Adler’s article “How to be much cleverer than all your friends (so they really hate you) in the June/July 2005 issue of Philosophy Now.
[3] Although this is too narrow a focus, to limit the biblical narrative simply to personal salvation. See N.T. Wright, Scripture and the Authority of God, SPCK, London, 2005
[4] E.g. Ps 1.29; 2.6-10. See also Ps 14.1.
[5] It is generally believed that most Palestinian Jews used the LXX, and that including by the 2 Tim 3.16 is a reference to the LXX. Why Grenz cannot affirm that Paul wrote this letter is not discussed!
[6] International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, The Chicago Statement on Inerrancy, 1978, Chicago, Illinois, p5.
[7] Chicago Statement, summary statements 1 and 2.
[8] Chicago Statement, statement 3, including all matters in creation (statement 4) such as the creation of the world and the Flood (Article XII).
[9] Chicago Statement, p12.
[10] Chicago Statement, p12.
[11] Chicago Statement, statement 4, articles VI, IX.
[12] Chicago Statement, article XI.
[13] Chicago Statement, statement 5.
[14] Chicago Statement , article XIX.
[15] Chicago Statement, p11.
[16] Chicago Statement, article X.
[17] Chicago Statement, p12.
[18] Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, Second Edition, Baker Books, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1998, p248.
[19] Sinclair B. Ferguson and David F Wright (eds), New Dictionary of Theology, Inter Varsity Press, Leicester, England/ Downers Grove, Illinois, 1988, p337.
[20] John Goldingay, Models for Scripture, William B Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1994, p262.
[21] Goldingay, p262-263.
[22] “If there be any mistakes in the bible, there may well be a thousand. If there be one falsehood in that book, it did not come from the God of truth”. Goldingay, p264.
[23] Goldingay, p265.
[24] Note that Paul D Feinberg in his essay The Meaning of Inerrancy in Norman L Geisler (ed), Inerrancy, The Zondervan Corporation, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1979, p269 takes it for granted that inerrancy is orthodoxy (before he even defines it).
[25] Whose obsession with the absolute accuracy of numbers insists upon inerrancy of every detail. George Marsden, Reforming Fundamentalism: Fuller Seminary and the New Evangelicalism, William B Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1987, p112.
[26] Quote from H D McDonald, Goldingay, p267.
[27] Nancey Murphy, Beyond Liberalism & Fundamentalism: How Modern and Postmodern Philosophy Set the Theological Agenda, Trinity Press International, Valley Forge, PA, 1996, p16.
[28] Such as is found in Hodge, so Murphy, p42.
[29] Bloesch, p96. Farrow, p126.
[30] Stanley Grenz, ”Nurturing the Soul, Informing the Mind: The Genesis of the Scripture Principle”, in Vincent E. Bacote, Laura C. Miguelez and Dennis L. Okholm (eds), Evangelicals & Scripture: Tradition, Authority and Hermeneutics, Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2004, p41.
[31] Douglas Farrow, The Word of Truth and Disputes About Words, Carpenter Books, Winona Lake, Indiana, 1987, p128.
[32] Bloesch, p91.
[33] Farrow, p139.
[34] Farrow, p28.
[35] John Bartkowski, Beyond Biblical Literalism and Inerrancy: Conservative Protestants and the Hermeneutic Interpretation of Scripture, Sociology of Religion 1996, 57:3, 259-272.
[36] Dockery, p66.
[37] Erickson, Christian Theology, p255f.
[38] Referring to Norman Geisler. Farrow, 273.
[39] J.P. Moreland, “The Rationality Of Belief In Inerrancy”, in Douglas Moo (Gen. Ed.), Biblical Authority and Conservative Perspectives: Viewpoints from Trinity Journal, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Publications, 1997, 159.
[40] Grenz, p401.
[41] Donald G. Bloesch, Holy Scripture: Revelation, Inspiration & Interpretation, Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1994, p94.
[42] J.I. Packer, Beyond the Battle for the Bible, Westchester, Illinois: Cornerstone Books, 1980, p56.
[43] Erickson, p258.
[44] To which we might add, all the worse for those scholars. David L. Edwards with John Stott, Essentials: A liberal-evangelical dialogue, London, Sydney, Auckland: Hodder & Stoughton, 1988, p56.
[45] Jesus using material more than once, multiple perspectives on events providing differences in accounts, abandoning Markan priority for Markan dependence, etc.
[46] Such as Jude’s issue of the Apocrypha or Stephen’s speech and its reference to Abram.
[47] “If we try to hold to the teaching of Scripture in preference to the phenomena, are we not saying in effect, “Determine the Biblical writers’ doctrine of inspiration from what they say, not what they do”? The true Biblical view of inspiration must account for all the evidence of Scripture”. Dewey Beegle, Inerrancy and the Phenomena of Scripture, in Readings in Christian Theology, Volume I The Living God, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1973, p249f..
[48] For example, Genesis 5. Beegle, p202-203.
[49] Harold Lindsell., The Case of the Molten Sea, in The Battle for the Bible, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1976.
[50] Goldingay, p269.
[51] A quote from Wyclif in Goldingay, p272.
[52] Goldingay, p272.
[53] That is, how do we know an intention of a writer? Goldingay, p270.
[54] David S Dockery, Christian Scripture: An Evangelical Perspective on Inspiration, Authority and Interpretation, Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1995, p66.
[55] Millard J. Erickson, "Problem Areas Related to Biblical Inerrancy" and Responses in The Proceedings of the Conference on Biblical Inerrance 1987, Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press, 1987, p183.
[56] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press/ Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1994, p90.
[57] Michael A Grisnati, Inspiration, Inerrancy, and the OT Canon: The Place of Textual Updating in an Inerrant View of Scripture, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Dec 44/4, 2001: 277-298.
[58] Grisnati, p590f.
[59] If deutero-Isaiah were an important prophetic figure, why is he unnamed? Likewise, if unnamed prophets updated Isaiah, surely it is deception for them to claim it is his work alone?
[60] Grenz, 401.
[61] Farrow, p96.
[62] Paul J Achtemeir, Inspiration and Authority: Nature and Function of Christian Scripture, Hendrickon Publishers, Peabody, Massachusetts, 1999, p94.
[63] Farrow, p98-9.
[64] Goldingay, p274.
[65] Goldingay, p275.
[66] Goldingay, p276.
[67] Dewey M Beegle, Scripture, Tradition and Infallibility, William B Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1973, p207.
[68] James Leo Garrett, Jr, Systematic Theology: Biblical, Historical and Evangelical, Vol. 1, Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1990, p167.
[69] Farrow, p219.
[70] Farrow, p222.
[71] Farrow, p217.
[72] Farrow, pp34, 150.
[73] McCormack, p6.
[74] Bruce L. McCormack, The Being of Holy Scripture is in Becoming: Karl Barth in Conversation with American Evangelical Criticism, Tenth Annual Wheaton Theology Conference Wheaton College, April 5, 2001, p6.
[75] McCormack, p14.
[76] McCormack, p13.
[77] Wright, p18.
[78] Wright, p24.
[79] Wright, p19. Note that publicly Wright has stated that this is working in the kingdom, not for it in the sense of building it.
[80] Wright, p67-8.
[81] Goldingay, p278.
[82] Farrow, p148.
[83] Under the assumption that if we abandon inerrancy so that we don’t have to defend the account of Pekah’s reign (because we do not believe it), then we can’t defend (or it is made more difficult to defend) the resurrection. Geisler, p280.
[84] Geisler appears to confuse notitia with assensus. If I think that there is a problem with Pekah’s reign length, it is not because I do not believe the bible, contra Geisler and Grudem, but because there is a genuine mistake.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)