There was an article that I found very interesting on the CBMW site written just about a year ago now. It was an interview with Al Mohler on the state of complementarianism today.
The first question posed to Mohler is an interesting one. I'll quote it here:
During the conservative resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention, the issue of women in ministry was a kind of proxy battle in the larger war over inerrancy. In recent years, however, the Southern Baptist Convention has seen the issue of women in ministry crop up again, but this time among inerrantists. What is this larger conflict about? Hermeneutics? Natural revelation?
Mohler's answer meanders some before he eventually says, "... we do need to recognize that once you affirm the inerrancy of Scripture, you are limited to certain plausible hermeneutical questions. So, the issue of the inspiration and authority of Scripture and the right reading of Scripture are always close at hand with these questions."
He does not explain what these "plausible hermeneutical questions" are.
Still, this old interview touched on a topic I find to be relevant today.
It was something that everyone around me in my PCA church always stated. The inerrancy, infallibility, and authority of Scripture was something everyone around me professed wholeheartedly.
I still profess this as well.
However, I keep seeing and hearing people say that those who believe what I do about gender and sexuality have some fundamental problems in how Scripture is approached.
Namely that we're not treating it as the inerrant authoritative Word of God, because surely if we did we would believe something different.
It seems whenever there is a hot button controversial issue in the church, that issue becomes this line in the sand that separates those who "take the bible seriously" and those who don't.
I can't help but wonder if that is accurate.
For one, I do not know if professing Scripture to be inerrant says anything about whether one takes Scripture seriously.
Particularly, though, I want to define what it means to profess the inerrancy of Scripture because I find that so often, people merely state this with their lips and do not fully understand what is meant by it.
Golden Tablets from the Sky?
God's Word. What is it? How did we get it? And does that have a bearing on how we read it?
When Jews and Christians throughout history have read the Scriptures, they have always read Scripture as being the word of God to us. This way of understanding and reading the Scriptures continues to this day.
Yet throughout history we also have not read the Scriptures as though they have just fallen out of the sky or were handed to us like God handed Moses the ten commandments on tablets, inscribed with his own finger.
Some faith traditions, such as the Mormon faith, state that their sacred text came directly from the heavens. Those who practice Judaism and Christianity, though, do not profess this.
The bible is a collection of books spanning a vast portion of history, written by human hands and speaking God's word to his people. It is both divinely inspired as well as being a collection of stories and poems from an ancient people. It is the product of both the divine hand and the human hand.
The Old Testament that we have today was compiled across a period of approximately one thousand years.
That's a very long stretch of history. The New Testament was formed in a much shorter span of time, although it would take a little longer for a canon to be established.
The point being, the modern bible as we have it today is all bound up neatly together between covers of fake leather or what have you, and it makes it easy to forget all the rich history behind how we have ended up with what has become so familiar.
For some, this history of the making of the bible is scandalous or becomes a crisis of faith because we forget the bible didn't just fall out of heaven in its present form.
The fact that the Scriptures have this rich history, though, and many manuscripts, and the fact that many human hands were involved in its making need not contradict that it is the word of God, divinely inspired, and authoritative.
It should also make us think exactly what we mean when we say the word "inerrant".
I agree that the word of God is perfect. It is reliable. It teaches us about God and points us to Christ.
Yet the Scriptures also have a very traceable history. With that comes learning all about the different manuscripts we have discovered over the years and the various differences between them.
The three most important and recognizable Old Testament manuscripts are the Masoretic Texts, the Septuagint, and the Dead Sea Scrolls.
The Masoretic Texts are a collection of the Hebrew bible generated by a group of Jewish scholars over a period of 500 years. These texts are renowned for their meticulous care for the bible. They provide us with a vast wealth of extremely well-preserved manuscripts.
The Septuagint is a manuscript that is earlier than the Masoretic texts by quite a bit. It is a Greek translation of the Hebrew bible dating from approximately 200-100 BC. This is likely because of the conquests of Alexander the Great and how Greek became a widely spoken language which would have been used day-to-day.
When comparing the Masoretic Texts and the Septuagint, we find differences. Most are rather insignificant, but some are.
For example, the book of Ezekiel in the Masoretic Texts contains quite a bit of addition that is not there in the Septuagint. Most are quotations from other books of the bible or seem to be providing commentary or explanation. Basically, the scribes seemed to be trying to help people better understand the book of Ezekiel. Although sometimes the additions are not quite so easily explained.
Sometimes we find omissions from the Masoretic text that are part of the Septuagint. Generally, these seem to be the results of scribal error.
We also have the Dead Sea Scrolls. Here we have a Hebrew manuscript that was written around the same time as the Septuagint (approx. 200 BC - 70 AD), found in some caves near the dead sea. It took the hard work of a team of Catholic scholars to piece it all together. Interestingly, when we compare the Dead Sea Scrolls to the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint, different parts of it match up to each perfectly. Sometimes, it will match up with the Septuagint. Other times it matches up to the Masoretic Texts.
Just looking at the Old Testament and these particular manuscripts, we can see how there were different manuscripts or texts that existed even around the same time period.
While most differences are insignificant, some are.
It just goes to show how humans were involved in the collection and preservation of the Scriptures.
Humans are capable of making errors when copying and translating. Humans make omissions and additions to the text.
God's hand, though, was involved in divinely orchestrating all of it.
So what do we mean when we say the Scriptures are "inerrant"?
We have different manuscripts and there are (albeit mainly insignificant) differences between them. This is fascinating and helps us see the reliability of these texts across time.
However, surely one manuscript is not more "inerrant" than another. How would we even determine such a thing?
Certainly, there were errors scribes made. What do we make of that?
Also, the books of the bible speak with an accent, so to speak. We are getting the word of God, but it is coming to us through real people who lived and spoke in real cultures with real ancient languages.
In these cultures and throughout time, our understanding of the way things work has changed. Sometimes that will become clear when reading Scripture, like the idea that all the heavenly bodies encircle the earth, such as the sun moving about the earth.
However, we rightly are not reading the bible expecting the authors to be giving us a lesson in science, nor do we assume they are stupid or ignorant. They merely lived in a different time and wrote things from their point of view. But what does this say about the inerrancy of Scripture if the biblical author doesn't get their astronomy and physics on point?
Yet we know God's hand was ever-present in the formation of the Scriptures.
So what does it mean to profess Scripture as being "inerrant"? I like what it says in the WCF:
"We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the church to a high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture. And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man [or woman's] salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are argument whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit by and with the Word in our hearts."
Scripture is perfect in its entity. You can see its perfection in its efficacy, majesty, in how it all fits together, and in how it so well presents to us the truth of the gospel. It evidences itself to be, truly, the Word of God.
Lastly, we are assured of its infallible truth and divine authority by the work of the Holy Spirit.
We can know Scripture to be sufficient. We can know it to be true.
Not because there weren't errors in the manuscripts or the authors sometimes didn't seem to have the most accurate understanding of science.
And the infallible truth that is revealed to us in Scripture and its divine authority is something we are assured of by the work of the Holy Spirit.
Taking the Bible Seriously
It is understandable why many evangelical Christians feel upholding the inerrancy of Scripture is important.
The concern is that people can essentially worship a god of their own making instead of the God we read about in Scripture.
That is why when someone has a different interpretation of the bible, it often just becomes an argument back and forth about who takes the bible more seriously and gets labeled as an "inerrancy" problem.
Still, though, is who professes the bible to be "inerrant" really the best metric for determining who takes Scripture and therefore God seriously?
While reading Scot McKnight's book The Blue Parakeet, he recounts a situation in which a student said:
"What good is inerrancy if you don't do what God says? ... If I do what God says to me through the Bible, doesn't that show that my view of the Bible is the right one?"
Ouch.
Professing Scripture as being the perfect and authoritative Word of God is important and central to my faith.
I also know some who truly profess Christ yet do not say Scripture is inerrant - precisely because of the history I talked about and how the word "inerrant" is a bit ambiguous. Not to say they do not regard the bible very highly, but to say they will not go so far as to say it is "inerrant".
I've chatted with brothers and sisters in the PCUSA for what they think about Scripture, and they agree it is authoritative, divinely inspired, and the Word of God to us. Even among those who don't call Scripture "inerrant", there is a spectrum of views of how Scripture is approached. The vast majority, I think, would be almost indistinguishable from so-called "inerrantists".
This still is a massive almost primary difference. However, they believe in the gospel and profess Jesus to be the son of God; in him, they find their rest. They study Scripture and try to understand what it teaches us about God and how it points to Christ along with the rest of us. More than that, in their lives you can see clearly how their faith in Jesus has an influence on what they do.
This might remind us of a certain parable from Matthew:
“What do you think? There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work today in the vineyard.’
“‘I will not,’ he answered, but later he changed his mind and went.
“Then the father went to the other son and said the same thing. He answered, ‘I will, sir,’ but he did not go.
“Which of the two did what his father wanted?”
“The first,” they answered.
Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him. - Matthew 21:28-32 (NIV).
It also might remind us of the truth we read in James:
What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? - James 2:14 (NIV).
We can profess with our lips that Scripture is "inerrant" all day long. But what good is it to say that and then disregard God's words to us?
What good is it if we say Scripture is inerrant and then accuse a victim of rape that it was her fault? If we cover up scandals and protect sexual abusers? What good is it to say Scripture is inerrant if we harm the most vulnerable in society? If we turn a blind eye to the sufferings of our neighbors?
That's a sobering thought.
I hope we can do more than just say we think Scripture is "inerrant" (whatever that means to whoever happens to be saying it at the time). If we read Scripture and then are not transformed by it, what does that say about our faith?
But let's leave off with an encouraging and edifying prayer made by Paul to the Ephesians: