I’ve stopped using the concept of inerrancy in discussions about the Bible; mostly because the way I describe the Bible’s authority and God-givenness do not require me to make reference to inerrancy. It just isn’t a question I am forced to ask. Even for people who do talk about inerrancy, usually to affirm it, it is not an essential doctrine; that is, it is required only in conjunction with particular arguments for the authority of the Bible.That being said, and in light of this, I ran across a couple of interesting passages in the fourth chapter of Schmitt’s “Political Theology” that casts the relationship between inerrancy and authority in a new light:
Infallibility was for [De Maistre] the essence of the decision that cannot be appealed, and that the infallibility of the spiritual order was of the same nature as the sovereignty of the state order. The two words infallibility and sovereignty were ‘perfectly synonymous.’
And,
In practice, not to be subject to error and not to be accused of error were for him the same. The important point was that no higher authority could review the decision.
For myself I have taken to using the word “normative” to describe the Bible’s authority, as in, “when we say that the bible is scripture we are making a claim about its authority for our community.” But I think what I am trying to get at is that last point; that there is no higher authority to which we might appeal. This distinction between capacity for error and being subject to criticism is an interesting one, is is sustainable?
Entries (RSS)
March 16th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
I agree that the evangelical doctrine of inerrancy is immature. Once you start talking about original autographs you have lost any practicality. I like the appeal to Scripture as our greatest authority or what is ‘normative’ for our community. This works great for theology but it makes things tougher in biblical studies because you have to deal with those that want to slice and dice the Bible and claim some sections more authoritative than others. I’m not sure what to do on that point.
March 16th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
A thought, Ben:
From what vantage point do we “slice and dice” the text? What authorizes us to make some “slices” and not others? Where does that set of guidelines derive? If we find that the frameworks that guide the textual criticism work such that the text is rendered less-than Scripture, and hence, not normative then the perspective that the critic is taking is as an outsider to the Christian community (for whom the bible is Normative). This is, I think, the power of that last idea from Schmitt: if we find ourself in a position whereby the text does not have the last word, it is then not sovereign - not normative, and this ceases to be scripture for us. its in that case that this “Normative” language can functionally replace the inerrancy language. This is not going to work for apologetic tasks - but then again the inerrancy tact didn’t either.
March 30th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Hey Chris,
nice piece. I think the language of inerrrancy certainly is defensive . . . and its origin and context bear witness to that. I’ve come to the conclusion, that as far as articulating a “positive” Christian bibliology, inerrancy just won’t do—just as “higher criticism” won’t do. When it comes to “defensive apologetics,” I have no problem using the language of inerrancy. So we probably agree on this.