Speaking of the Bible . . .
Modernism began in German universities in the 19th Century. The faculty of Arts and Sciences got tired of the Divinity faculty stopping every argument by saying, "The Bible says . . ." So they took up the subject of the Bible itself, subjecting it to the disciplines of literary criticism and science. Except the starting point of modernism is that the supernatural doesn't exist, and that miracles cannot happen, ex hypothesi. Any instance in Scripture of direct contact with God or a miracle happening was assumed to be made up or rationalized after the fact. The secular faculty managed to wrest the discussion of the Bible away from the pastors, but the game was rigged. They had created a test the Bible was guaranteed to fail.
In response, believing academics created a list of "fundamentals" which are explicitly supernatural/miraculous that are an essential part of the Christian faith. So they were called Fundamentalists. Some very respectable people were in this group. But some of them went so far as to create a test the Bible was guaranteed not to fail, positing an infallible (or, if you will, inerrant) Bible. Then they went on to invoke all kinds of pseudo-science to try to back it up. They also say that if the Bible is provably wrong on anything -- even the tiniest error -- then you can't count on any of it, which backs believers into a corner, demanding they affirm some really strange stuff lest they be perceived as not believing in the inspiration of Scripture.
Fundamentalists lost the argument in the public eye vs. the Modernists. They rebranded themselves as "Evangelical." They still had their list of fundamentals, and many of them still talked about an inerrant Bible, but they managed to present themselves to the public as reasonable people. They probably represent a majority of active church folk today.
My point here is not about evangelicalism, but about the consequences of arguing over an inerrant Bible. I don't like the thumb-on-the-scales approach of either the Modernists or the Fundamentalists. And there are a couple of new wrinkles here.
One is by Adam Hamilton, with his "buckets" of Scripture. This approach says that parts of the Bible are fully authoritative -- inerrant, even -- but we get to decide which parts are, and which aren't. This is ultimately a modernist approach, though it can be combined with a belief in the supernatural. At bottom, though, it presents a Bible that is anything you want it to be.
A different approach is that of the Evangelicals (or former Evangelicals) trying to square public acceptance of LGBTQ with the Scriptures. They want to say that they believe in all the right stuff, but they want to include things the Bible has never been seen as okay with. Their solution is to affirm the infallibility of the Bible, but to use it to redefine the God of the Bible as fallible. As someone who changes his mind over time. Using an inerrant book to present an erring God to inspire it seems a peculiar approach to me.
All four approaches -- of the Modernists, of the Fundamentalists, of the Parts Department, and of the "New and Improved, Okay-with-Gay, Evangelicals" -- seem to me to be exercises in shooting your arrow first, then drawing the target around it. You always hit the bullseye. All of them are using unacknowledged a prioris when presenting their arguments. All of them therefore lack intellectual integrity, though I would say that all of them are very sincere in their convictions.
My own view is that the Bible is, first and foremost, an old book. It needs to be treated as any old book is treated, without preconceived views as to its authority. Taking it seriously means appreciating the human chain of transmission by which we have it in our hands today. But it also means taking its assertions seriously. Explaining the Bible must not result in merely explaining it away. "I believe the Bible" has to be a conclusion, not a premise. And once one has accepted that conclusion one can go on to build upon that foundation.
In response, believing academics created a list of "fundamentals" which are explicitly supernatural/miraculous that are an essential part of the Christian faith. So they were called Fundamentalists. Some very respectable people were in this group. But some of them went so far as to create a test the Bible was guaranteed not to fail, positing an infallible (or, if you will, inerrant) Bible. Then they went on to invoke all kinds of pseudo-science to try to back it up. They also say that if the Bible is provably wrong on anything -- even the tiniest error -- then you can't count on any of it, which backs believers into a corner, demanding they affirm some really strange stuff lest they be perceived as not believing in the inspiration of Scripture.
Fundamentalists lost the argument in the public eye vs. the Modernists. They rebranded themselves as "Evangelical." They still had their list of fundamentals, and many of them still talked about an inerrant Bible, but they managed to present themselves to the public as reasonable people. They probably represent a majority of active church folk today.
My point here is not about evangelicalism, but about the consequences of arguing over an inerrant Bible. I don't like the thumb-on-the-scales approach of either the Modernists or the Fundamentalists. And there are a couple of new wrinkles here.
One is by Adam Hamilton, with his "buckets" of Scripture. This approach says that parts of the Bible are fully authoritative -- inerrant, even -- but we get to decide which parts are, and which aren't. This is ultimately a modernist approach, though it can be combined with a belief in the supernatural. At bottom, though, it presents a Bible that is anything you want it to be.
A different approach is that of the Evangelicals (or former Evangelicals) trying to square public acceptance of LGBTQ with the Scriptures. They want to say that they believe in all the right stuff, but they want to include things the Bible has never been seen as okay with. Their solution is to affirm the infallibility of the Bible, but to use it to redefine the God of the Bible as fallible. As someone who changes his mind over time. Using an inerrant book to present an erring God to inspire it seems a peculiar approach to me.
All four approaches -- of the Modernists, of the Fundamentalists, of the Parts Department, and of the "New and Improved, Okay-with-Gay, Evangelicals" -- seem to me to be exercises in shooting your arrow first, then drawing the target around it. You always hit the bullseye. All of them are using unacknowledged a prioris when presenting their arguments. All of them therefore lack intellectual integrity, though I would say that all of them are very sincere in their convictions.
My own view is that the Bible is, first and foremost, an old book. It needs to be treated as any old book is treated, without preconceived views as to its authority. Taking it seriously means appreciating the human chain of transmission by which we have it in our hands today. But it also means taking its assertions seriously. Explaining the Bible must not result in merely explaining it away. "I believe the Bible" has to be a conclusion, not a premise. And once one has accepted that conclusion one can go on to build upon that foundation.