Some thoughts on the imperfection of the scriptures

OK, I know with a title like that I should watch out for people carrying pitchforks! :)

But consider: first of all, "perfection" is relative. "Perfect" is often used to mean "complete", "not lacking in anything". Pragmatically speaking, however, we might use "perfect" to mean "entirely sufficient for ...". Notice the elipsis - the missing term. Hence the relativity of perfection; at least on this conception of perfection.

We evangelicals often throw around a handful of adjectives when we talk about scripture, and usually we don't stop to explain what we mean by them. Adjectives like "inspired", "inerrant", "infallible", "authoritative", "complete", "perfect", even "holy". When we give lectures or write textbooks, then we sometimes take a stab at defining some of these terms in reference to scripture. Textbook "infallibilists" say that scripture is "perfect", "inerrant", or "inspired", or "authoritatve", or "complete" in all matters pertaining to faith and practice. I am probably a textbook infallibilist by many people's lights. I'm willing to affirm that scripture is complete and perfect rel. to all faith (i.e., doctrine) and practice. Textbook "inerrantists" (sometimes called "fundamentalists") complain that infallibilists leave out the inerrancy and authority and perfection of scripture in all matters of history (and maybe even science?). Perhaps the idea is that if the Gospel of Luke says such-and-such was governor of such-and-such territory around the time of Jesus' birth, then this historical fact is unquestionably true. Many inerrantists might further insist that since the Fourth Gospel says Jesus cleansed the Temple close to the beginning of his three-year ministry, and the Synoptic Gospels say Jesus cleansed the Temple at the beginning of Passion Week, after the Triumphal Entry, he must have done it twice. Some inerrantists might further insist that God created all things in heaven and earth in seven twenty-four hour days. (Outside of the textbook accounts, people like me often question whether the Bible actually makes all of these factual claims -- leaving alone the "inerrancy" of what the Bible actually does claim.)

Still, I'm willing to grant significant intelligibility to textbooks' making a distinction between one group ("infallibilists") that say the Bible is trustworthy and true with regard to faith + practice only, and another group ("inerrantists") that say the Bible is trustworthy and true with regard to faith + practice + "mundane" history. Even though as a student of religions--or as a philosopher--I'm not sure what else there is to any religion -- or to life in general -- besides faith [what you believe] and practice [what you do]. I guess there's more to reality than one's life (individual or communal). And facts of "mundane history" arguably are part of the reality that extends beyond one's life.

To pick back up on my original train of thought ... "perfection" is relative. I might say (wearing an "infallibilist" hat) that scripture is "perfect" or "entirely sufficient" on all matters of faith and practice. In my saying this, I probably intend to leave room for significant diversity of opinion on many matters within the community of the faithful. Regardless of what one might think about the veracity of the Bible's many historical claims (and I do not here mean to deny them), there are many historical facts on which the Bible is silent. The socio-political history of ancient China, for example. Or the dates of all the important battles of the American Revolution. So, whether the Bible is "perfect" or not, depends on what we are asking of it. Since we don't expect an account of ancient Chinese or 18th century American history, its lacking these things does not blemish its "perfection" in our eyes. Well and good. And really, I don't know of anyone who does expect those things from the Bible (Well...unless there was someone in the 18th century that thought Revelation predicted all that would happen in the next 30-50 years??)

However, I think there are other things we come to the Bible expecting, quite often. I include myself here. It would be nice if the Bible was more helpful in our making decisions. Not just morally, but about important life issues -- like where to go to college, what to major in, what career to pursue, or whom to marry (or whether to marry at all!), for example. I have actually known people who opened their Bible and expected to find answers to these questions. I probably have been one of them. Even leaving those things aside, it would be nice if the Bible gave us clear, immediate guidance on all our moral and ethical practices. Without having to do complicated exegesis or systematic theology or Christian ethics through lenses of tradition and reason, I mean. Sadly, the Bible seems to me to be silent on important issues like abortion, torture, and universal health care. (That is, if we're not reading it and then using tradition and reason to mediate scripture and Christian ethics.) Suffice it to say -- and here is my main point in sum -- we all have questions, really important questions, that the Bible does not answer. That is, the scriptures are not entirely sufficient for our intellectual and practical lives. Even while they may be sufficient for our "faith and practice" in the textbook sense (as I here affirm). In this sense, then, scripture is woefully imperfect.

Now, there's good news and bad news. The good news is, God didn't just give us the Bible.

"Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs." (Hebrews 1:1-4, ESV)

The perfect and complete Word of God is the Son, Jesus, the resurrected and exalted one. He is perfect as "the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of [God's] nature". He is complete in that he is final -- he is the last Word of God, spoken "in these last days".

The bad news is that even having Jesus -- whether found in the pages of scripture or in the Spirit indwelling our hearts -- we are still going to have difficulty getting answers to all of our questions. Certainly many of our answers will be fallible. Thus there will continue to be disagreements among the saints. Relative to our questions, Jesus too is imperfect.

Friends, we have to learn to deal with imperfection. I guess answering all of our questions--even all of our theological and moral questions--wasn't God's purpose in communicating with us about Godself.

Still, we have this promise in our imperfect scriptures -- make of it what you will:

"If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him." (James* 1:5, ESV)

---

* Aside: I think it is a real travesty of Anglo-dominated Western Christianity that we have forgotten the name of the brother of our Lord, which was actually the same as the birth name of Israel -- Jacob. If you didn't know, it was changed throughout the New Testament when the King James version was translated, in honor of King James himself. Any Greek text you find will still read "Jacob" -- a Hebrew name, not a Scottish one. I almost want to complain that it's anti-Semitic. At the very least, we do a disservice to the tradition of the early Church, and the memory of one of the pillars of the church at Jerusalem by mis-naming him every time we speak of him or cite the book that bears his name. IMO, it's long since time that new translations of the New Testament into English depart from the 17th century tradition of using the name "James".

------

"Make me a channel of Your Peace."

-St. Francis

Read the full post.

Brief Digression -- Literalism and Genesis

I'm following a series of posts on reading Genesis 2-3 (two posts so far) by "RJS" at Scot McKnight's blog "Jesus Creed" -- see link in the right-hand column of this page.

I want so share two bits of this conversation, and invite comment on related issues here (or on Facebook).

This is a list offered by one commenter of problems that arise when one attempts to read Gen 1-2 "literally".

Gen 1:

-- the universe, the earth, and life on earth were not created in 6 days. It's more like 14 billion years.

-- the earth was not in existence or in place before the Sun; the earth, like every other planet, arose through the gradual accretion of debris that coalesced over a long period of orbit around the Sun;

-- there is not and never was an expanse of waters above the earth

-- seed bearing plants were not the first kind of plants

-- the moon does not produce light

-- animals and humans were not all vegetarian

Gen. 2:

-- there was a weather cycle including rain by the time plants appeared

-- human beings did not appear suddenly out of nothing

-- the geography of the three rivers flowing out of Eden never existed (we know of two of the rivers, not the third, and they do not have a common headwater above the Persian Gulf)

-- conflict with Gen. 1: man created before animals in Gen. 2

-- male and female humans evolved together; women were not cloned from a man's rib

-- no angel with a flaming sword has yet been discovered in Iraq.

Gen. 3:

-- snakes do not talk

-- God does not walk

And this is from a comment by the same person about the complexities involved in trying to fix one meaning (rooted in authorial intent) for this text--or any Pentateuchal text:

So, I think we have multiple overlapping exegetical hermeuentical issues here:

-- what did the sources (presumably an oral tradition or traditions stretching back to Egypt and Mesopotamia) underlying Gen. 2 understand and intend those stories to mean;

-- what did the Yahwist author / community that first encoded this oral tradition "intend" Gen. 2 to mean;

-- what did the redacting community that compiled the Priestly and Yahwist traditions in Gen. 1 and 2 into a canonical text intend and understand it to mean;

-- what did the Apostolic authors of the NT literature referring to the canonical Hebrew scriptures intend and understand about their use of the Hebrew scriptures.

I would add at least one more: what did / does the Holy Spirit intend for this text to mean as inspired scripture?

I'm becoming more and more convinced that seeking out an individual, unified "authorial intent" isn't really all that helpful with this sort of text.

Here is the link to this commenter's own site (which I haven't visited, but will after posting this): http://www.tgdarkly.com/blog

What do readers think? How do you read Genesis 2-3? Do you aim to find a single meaning which is the Word of God in this text? Dr. Heth always said "one meaning; many applications", but I see difficulty in applying this to the Pentateuch or the OT in general because I'm not sure whose authorial/editorial intent counts, and I suppose that these texts were used during the canonization process to preach different messages to different situations-in-life in different generations. How can God speak to us through these texts?

Vi - a respondent on this post said (in reply to the list of problems raised by attempted literal readings of Gen 1-2) that C. John Collins' _Genesis 1-4_ seems to clear up a lot of these problems. Is this Dr. Collins a prof of yours? Not that that makes you accountable to speak for him or anything, but I'd welcome any insights you have, and I'm curious as to what impressions you formed in a Pentateuch class (assuming you took one) at Covenant.

------

"Make me a channel of Your Peace."

-St. Francis

Read the full post.

The Chicago Statement, pt 1

I have been thinking about inerrancy (again) quite a bit recently. I heard informally about a prof in a religion department at a Christian college being discouraged by (some) other members of his department from continuing to teach there because his views about biblical inspiration and authority didn't line up with the Chicago Statement. This irks me. I read the Chicago Statement in Seminar in Biblical Literature with Dr. Helyer a few years ago. I remember thinking at the time that I became less inclined to agree with it as the drafters became more specific. Here are my present thoughts as I go through it again now: Read the Full Post.

(I'm working on my thesis. Really. I wrote most of this last night. I'm taking a short break to post it.)

Comments on the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy

(Based on fulltext retrieved here: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Chicago_Statement_on_Biblical_Inerrancy)

PREFACE

1. The authority of the Christian scriptures (the Old and New Testaments) matters. (¶ 1)

For, as Christians we confess “Christ is Lord”; thus we claim to submit to divine authority in the person of Jesus. If the scriptures are the Word of God—if they in some significant sense represent or mediate to us Christ who is the divine Word—then, as evangelicals are typically understood to confess, we must regard the scriptures as authoritative for our faith and practice as Christ’s disciples. To understand the basis for the evangelical claim that the Bible is authoritative for us, we must properly understand the connection between the authority of the scriptures and the authority of Christ our Lord.

2. The authority of the scriptures is contingent upon their inerrancy.

The writers of the Chicago Statement imply that in order for us to “adequately confess” the authority of the Bible we must recognize its “total truth and trustworthiness”—this latter is the doctrine of inerrancy. (¶ 1) To deny biblical inerrancy, they write, is to ignore the witness of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit—thus, to fail in our loyalty to our God in at least two of God’s Persons—and to refuse to submit to the authority of God’s Word, which submission is a necessary condition of “true Christian faith”. (¶ 2)

At the same time, the drafters of the Chicago Statement admit “that many who deny the inerrancy of Scripture do not display the consequences of this denial in the rest of their belief and behavior”. (¶ 4) This implies (along with the next point below) that the statement should not be understood to condemn all who deny biblical inerrancy as false Christians or as heretics.

3. The Chicago Statement is not intended as a creedal statement (¶ 3)

This implies that the drafters of the Chicago Statement did not wish the statement to be employed as a litmus test for orthodoxy. It is not to be regarded so highly as, for example, the Nicene Creed as a statement of orthodox faith (what has been believed “always, everywhere, and by all”). Likewise, the three-day consultation which resulted in the Chicago Statement should not be regarded so highly as an ecumenical council—i.e., on par with the Council of Chalcedon which gives us the definition of Christological orthodoxy. The drafters explicitly lay no claim to infallibility. (¶ 5)

The Chicago Statement is intended to (a) affirm and clarify the doctrine of inerrancy, (b) to exhort other Christians to understand and appreciate the importance of this doctrine, and (c) to spur on “a new reformation of the Church in its life, faith, and mission.” (¶ 3)

[Autonoesis: #2 above is the one point from the Preface which I would like to debate; I’m not sure I’m convinced it is true. Clearly its plausibility will depend on what is meant by “inerrancy” and what is meant by “authority”.]

---

SUMMARY STATEMENT

The truthfulness of God & the revelatory purpose of scripture

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

Explication

1. God does not lie. Hence, whatever is the Word of God is by definition truthful and trustworthy.
2. The Christian scriptures are inspired by God (1 Timothy 3:16)
3. God’s inspiration of the scriptures is for the purpose of God’s self-revelation. (This is apparently thought to be the primary purpose of the scriptures.)
4. Scripture reveals God through Jesus Christ. (The person of Christ is the primary revelation—I mean that the witness of scripture is that God reveals Himself to humanity through Jesus; the object of the witness clearly takes priority to the witness itself.)
5. Scripture in particular reveals God as Creator, Lord, Redeemer, and Judge. (These are important roles for God & God-in-Christ in the story of salvation-history).

Comment

• I’ll accept the first point in my explication on philosophical (i.e., a priori) grounds. (It would seem strange to accept that God does not lie because scriptures accepted as the Word of God say so…just because someone says they never lie doesn’t mean this is true. I don’t think God is an instantiation of Machiavelli’s Prince. And the reason I don’t think so has to do with natural theology (for better or for worse!)).

• I’ll accept the second point on grounds of apostolic authority (i.e., I think Paul said it, and I think he said it as a representative of Christ bearing Christ's authority). However, I’m not committed to apostolic infallibility or inerrancy. (It would seem, BTW, that the claims: (1) biblical authority is contingent upon biblical inerrancy and (2) apostolic authority is contingent upon apostolic inerrancy would stand or fall together…. My skepticism on both points seems connected. But strangely the typical fundamentalist Protestant thing to do, I think, would be to accept the former while being at least somewhat skeptical of the latter. Maybe good Catholics would accept both?)

• Probably, "The Christian scriptures are inspired by God" is supposed to imply "The Christian scriptures are the Word of God"; hence, combined with the first point, "The Christian scriptures are by definition true and trustworthy." (I.e., biblical inerrancy). I'm not sure I'm satisfied yet that "inspiration" has been unpacked enough to justify logic. Has it yet been established that this claim is false: "the scriptures are not the Word of God, yet they contain the Word of God"?

• My points 3-5 might be understood to limit the content of the inspired/inerrant biblical revelation. For instance, the Chicago Statement says here "Scripture is God's witness to Himself"--but is every statement in scripture a statement about God? Similarly, one might question that every statement in scripture is a revelation of God to lost human beings through Jesus Christ as Creator, Lord, Redeemer, and Judge. Perhaps the so-called "infallibilist" (as typically distinguished from "inerrantist") could say, for example, that scientific/historical details about the creation are not inerrant, but the big-picture idea that God is Creator is inerrant. And maybe the openness theologians that ETS disciplined on grounds of their purported rejection of inerrancy a few years ago (or their caricatures, anyway) might say that future/”historical” details about the eschaton are not inerrant, but the big-picture idea that God is Judge is inerrant. And maybe someone could say that all statements about God and God’s actions are inerrant, but historical statements about the actions of human beings (what Pilate or even Moses said or did, say) are not inerrant.

• To be fair, the statement here leaves open that God might have additional purposes in inspiring scripture. But certainly to this point the Chicago Statement does not require people who agree with it to attribute any further purposes to God than to communicate revelation about God, especially about God-in-Christ and certain of God's roles in salvation history.
  

------

"Make me a channel of Your Peace."

-St. Francis

Read the full post.