Inerrancy?
OK, this isn’t a topic I think about that often, but I’ve recently been bumping into it in various places – the idea that the Bible is “inerrant”. In a way, it’s odd that there should be such debate about this. The word itself means “without error”, which isn’t such a bad guideline initially. However, the way this word is used owes a lot to history and politics. It might surprise some to learn that the historic position of the Church (any wing you care to mention) has never been that the Bible is inerrant in the sense that word is used. The term was only invented during the 19th century as part of the debate between the evangelical and liberal wings of the response to Modernism. The evangelicals wanted to affirm that the Bible was reliable and authoritative in its teachings, in the face of challenges from atheists waving new scientific findings as though they disproved Christianity, and they picked “inerrancy” as their battle cry. (The liberals, by contrast, wanted to affirm that the Bible and Christianity taught nothing that was untrue or contrary to the way the world really worked.)
However, there is a huge, huge gulf between saying that the Bible is authoritative and reliable, and saying that it’s inerrant. “Inerrancy” has accumulated a huge variety of spurious beliefs around it that mean it’s a very bad word to use unless you actually want to convey those beliefs. Such as that we should rely on the Bible for every little piece of truth – science, maths, astronomy, whatever – if the Bible addresses it then it must be absolutely, without quesion, 100% factually accurate. If the Bible says that the Sun stood still in the sky for 3 days then that’s what it did (and never mind that the Sun doesn’t move across the sky but that the Earth rotates); if the Bible says that pi is 3 then never mind that it’s actually 3.14159…; if the Bible says that God created the heavens and earth in 7 days then it must be so (and never ask what it means for there to be days before there were Sun or Moon).
My point? Inerrancy is a bad word. For debate about what we think about the Bible and how we approach it, it’s almost meaningless, because some people cling to it as an anchor but never really think about what it means, while others are dashed against its obduracy and pig-headedness when faced with the slightest hint of metaphor. “Inerrancy” becomes a cipher, a password for orthodoxy. If we really want to think clearly, to make sense and to communicate, it is far, far better for us to use more limited, more accurate and more helpful words. If we mean to say that God inspired the Bible then let us say so. If we mean that parts are poetical, let us say so. If we mean that parts are good history, let us say so. (And all of those are things I would proudly proclaim.) By contrast, if we mean that God dictated it to human scribes, let us say so. If we mean that every word is historically accurate, with not a hint of bias or spin, let us say so. If we mean that it is an astronomy text, let us say so. (And not one of those is something I would want to hear any Christian claiming.)
pax et bonum
Atheist fundamentalism
The Guardian Unlimited is carrying an article by Giles Fraser lambasting the simplistic approach of too many atheists, who wilfully fail to engage with the real issues.
Christian Carnival
This week’s Christian Carnival is up, courtesy of Sven. There’s some good stuff there – go read 
I particularly noticed this post on Christ’s weakness, this post on the difference between Calvinists and reasonable people ( ), and this post on what happens when you translate Amazing Grace into French (German, Italian) and back again using a computer.
pax et bonum
Behe - Intelligent Design equivalent to astrology
New Scientist is reporting the progress of the trial in the USA in which parents are taking legal action to stop their school board adding Intelligent Design to the science curriculum. Their grounds are that ID is essentially a religious position and not science at all; the ID crowd usually maintain that it is a genuine scientific theory, despite the total lack of any published science to support it (even from themselves). Michael Behe, one of the main proponents of ID, has been giving evidence in the trial and has admitted that, according to the usual definitions, ID is not a scientific theory. He said that he had his own definition, under which ID was a real scientific theory. However, when questioned, he admitted that his definition would also include astrology as “valid” science.
Oops.
pax et bonum
The Word?
Graham of Leaving Mόnster has some good thoughts on what we mean by “the Word of God” – Jesus or the Bible?
Important pieces
Sven, in his Theology and Biblical Studies blog quotes a recent interview with NT Wright. In this, Wright discusses some of the troubling aspects of recent debates in the church. In this case, we’re harking back to Chalke-gate – the furore in the evangelical church in the UK when a well-known evangelical dared to write a book in which he said that the concept of penal subsitution (a particular understanding of the atonement) was not only not biblical but even harmful and anti-Christian. This garnered him lots of criticism, even vitriol. Which is surprising, because Chalke was largely right in his assessment. Sadly, evangelicalism seems to have internalised penal substitution as not only a model of the atonement but the way in which the atonement works. They are blind to the other models used in the New Testament (to which penal substitution is entirely foreign – although other substitutionary models are found there).
The quotation from Wright I found particularly interesting, including this snippet, which has even wider applicability, I think. Whenever we allow part of the truth to become more important than the whole of the truth, we need to tread carefully.
Think of it like this. In a musical chord, the third (in a chord of C major, this would be the note E) is the critical one that tells you many things, e.g. whether the music is major or minor, happy or sad. That E is vital if the music is to make the sense it does. But if the player plays the E and nothing else, the E no longer means what its meant to mean. Likewise, substitutionary atonement is a vital element in the gospel. Miss it out, and the music of the gospel is no longer what it should be. But if you only play that note you are in danger of setting up a different harmony altogether.
pax et bonum
Children in the Way
Kathryn at Good in Parts has another little rant over the issue of children and communion
Proof, evidence, doubt and decision
There are words that are commonly misused with few ill effects. However, in other cases, using the wrong words can seriously harm how we communicate with one another. One such case is the common misuse and confusion surrounding the word “proof”. The problem becomes especially acute when we think about God – especially when believers and sceptics are both involved.
(click for more)
Evangelicals must repent?
Father Jake continues his review of Gays and the Future of Anglicanism with a chapter with a somewhat provocative theme – that some evangelicals need to repent of representing their own theology (and, in particular their own understanding of the Bible) as the only possible one. The idea that we have nothing to learn from brothers and sisters in Christ merely because they have different opinions is surely not Christian (indeed, if we share their opinions, we won’t be in danger of learning much from them anyway!). He quotes from the book (which seems more and more like an essential read), talking about the events surrounding the election of Gene Robinson (an openly gay man) as a bishop in the Episcopal Church of the USA:
The long period of dialogue in ECUSA leading up to the ratification of Gene Robinson’s election was marked by a “godlike” refusal of the evangelical right to participate. It was a refusal that took various forms. To a great extent, they simply did not attend parish and diocesan events intended to encourage dialogue. When they did attend, they simply repeated their existing position without any effort to show how it might connect with other perspectives. Most damaging of all, they refused to listen to the other people present and merely dismissed everyone and everything with which they disagreed. After the “dialogue,” they went right on identifying their position with that of the bible as if nothing else were possible, as if no one else had ever read scripture or argued for a different reading of the text.
The behavior can only be described as abusive toward the community as a whole, and its effects are still unrolling before us in the threats of schisms by which they propose to replicate in organizational ways a long-standing refusal to treat their fellow Anglicans as faithful Christians…A more critical factor in producing this result i[s] the insistence of one party that only their voice deserves to be heard…If [we are to achieve an “appropriately rich and diverse unity”], the next step will have to be repentance on the part of a great many evangelicals for their arrogance in commandeering scripture as their peculiar property – and on the part of other Anglicans for having tolerated it for too long.
pax et bonum
Breaking bread
Maggi and Kathryn are thinking about children and communion.
ID to Win?
Stephen over at Doggie\‘s Breakfast pointed me to this article, which claims that the victory of the theory of Intelligent Design over Darwinian evolution is inevitable. I posted a lengthy comment to his blog (sorry Stephen!), and I thought that it might be as well to reproduce it here, as my own response to the article.
The article makes some good points, but is flawed from the start: “Intelligent Design theory is destined to supplant Darwinism as the primary scientific explanation for the origin of human life.“
This is something that seems hard for many people to grasp, but ID (whatever its merits might be) is simply not a scientific explanation for anything. At best, it’s a justification for a supposed lack of a scientific explanation! To be scientific, a theory must be testable and falsifiable. ID is neither.
(click for more)
Orthodox prayer
Sven is looking some more at Orthodox prayer. Well worth a visit!
Homophobia
Father Jake spends some time discussing whether the church is homophobic, in the sense that many (or most) Christians have a gut-level “ick” reaction to homosexuality, rather than to any theological or moral arguments. Among other passages, he quotes this:
But if further evidence is needed, there is the very fact that the Anglican Communion had to set up a blue-ribbon panel and issue a weighty Report, all because the third largest church in the world is – or thinks it is – about to break up, not over an article of faith, but over the issue of same-sex relationships. The strangeness of this situation should not go unremarked…The elevation of one view of sexual behavior to the status of incontrovertible teaching, so incontrovertible that it is allowed to become the criterion of being in communion is without parallel, historical precedent, theological and moral justification – in fact, so preposterous that unless it had actually happened it would be scarcely credible.
pax et bonum
What must I do?
Dissonant bible puts a new spin on the parable of the rich young man (Mark 10.17-23).
Spanking
Graham of Leaving Mόnster shares why he doesn’t spank his children any more.
We are Legion
Waiter shares even more of himself than usual, and of the experience of darkness that we all share.
St Francis' day
Tuesday was St Francis’ day – the day when the church remembers St Francis of Assisi. And it was also the day when Cambridge said goodbye to the Society of St Francis. SSF have been in Cambridge for well over 60 years, including providing a vicar for St Bene’t church, so it was a sad day in many ways, despite the feast day of Francis. Bishop John (bishop of Huntingdon) celebrated the Eucharist for us all (first time I’ve had communion from a bishop!), and there was at least one other bishop there. The church itself, which isn’t that large, was crammed with worshippers wanting to join in giving thanks for the ministry of SSF in Cambridge and to say farewell.
Brother Martin Philip gave the sermon. One thing he mentioned that I’ve noticed before is that Francis is probably the most popular saint outside the New Testament, but most people know almost nothing about him. If pressed, they would probably talk about his love of animals and care for nature. And this is true, as far as it goes – Francis had a deep concern for God’s creation. However, the reason for this concern was that is God’s creation. Francis’ primary and deepest passion was for God and the Gospel. As part of this love, Francis also cared deeply for his brothers and sisters – whether they were people, animals, the Earth herself or whatever. This love drove his concern for the marginalised and his radical opposition to anything that harmed the things that God had made.
Francis was often regarded as odd – even insane. When his father tried to stop him leaving home to live as a friar, Francis publically renounced his father, even to the point of stripping off the clothes his father had provided for him to wear. In the times in which we live, his emphasis on living a simple life is perhaps more important than ever (Francis often said that he was married to Lady Poverty). Even more timely might be his approach to politics and war. At a time when most people’s only feeling about the Saracens (the Islamic nation with which Europe was at war) was that they should die, Francis personally travelled to Egypt and met with the Sultan to try and convert him to Christianity. He failed in this, but still had a courteous reception. Francis continued to send his brothers to witness to Christ among the Saracens because he saw this as important – not to harm our enemies but to try and win them over.
Above all, Francis is someone who shows us what it is like to live with an overwhelming passion for God. His total commitment to God and living the life that God called him to was what attracted so many people to him when he was alive, and continues to attract them today. Few saints show us such passion, joy and humility as Francis. Few show us as clearly what it means to live as Christians in the world.
pax et bonum
Violence and Falsehood
Generous Orthodoxy brings us some thoughts on the relationship between violence and falsehood.
(_Via WorD._)
Are emergent radical?
Karen at Kinesis has an interesting series of posts on “emergent church“ and how “radical” it really is – here, here and here.
Marriage
Graham of Leaving Mόnster talks about what Jesus actually said about marriage, divorce and remarriage.
More on that book...
Father Jake gives some extracts and commentary from that book. Still sounds very worth reading!
Creation, evolution and the Church
The Register is reporting a recent speech by a Cardinal Schoenborn (of the Roman Catholic Church) in which he made clear again the RC Church’s teaching about and evolution – that there is no conflict between the two. This is something that got obscured recently by a (apparently badly phrased) comment by Schoenborn that the RC Church was perhaps starting to frown on evolutionary theory; this is important because, as a cardinal, Schoenborn was seen as the voice of the Vatican.
The article is important because it draws a crucial distinction that is often missed:
Schoenborn said: “Without a doubt, Darwin pulled off quite a feat with his main work and it remains one of the very great works of intellectual history. I see no problem combining belief in the Creator with the theory of evolution, under one condition – that the limits of a scientific theory are respected.”
He explained that in his view, those limits would be overstepped if scientists claimed that evolution proves that there could be no creator. Since science has never made any such claim on evolution’s behalf, it looks like it’s still OK by the Vatican.
In other words, science describes how the world works – it does not (and cannot) by definition describe the unusual or extraordinary. Science works by eliminating all unusual events and studying only what usually happens. In this way, it deals with the rough edges of the real world. But, in the process, science rules itself out of any explanation of those unusual events. So, science can and does tell us how life works and develops. And, crucially, evolution doesn’t speak about the beginning of life. It speaks only of how life develops once it exists. Sure, scientists are interested in discovering how life might have arisen from non-life, but their chances are slim precisely because of the rarity of the event they’re trying to study. I wouldn’t count the scientists out (for, if life did arise through natural causes, they should be decipherable) but I also wouldn’t be placing any bets on their finding the answer – not because “God did it” but simply because it was a one-off, extraordinary event that isn’t amenable to experiment and repetition.
pax et bonum
ABofC might stop consecrating bishops
According to The Daily Telegraph (via Ekklesia), if the Church of England starts consecrating bishops, the Archbishop of Canterbury (Rowan Williams) might give up consecrating bishops. The problem is that the “traditionalists” say that they will not accept anyone who consecrates a woman bishop as a true bishop themselves. So, if The ABofC actually consecrated a woman, that would cause them problems accepting him as head of the Anglican Church. And the ABofC is in charge of consecrating all CofE bishops in the South of England (the Archbishop of York is in charge of the North).
The proposal apparently being made is a compromise, falling well short of the demands of the “traditionalists” for, effectively, their own scanctioned “church within a church”, in which the ABofC would delegate all consecration of bishops (men and women) to other bishops in order to allow all anglicans to recognise his leadership. This isn’t a good position, obviously, but it might be the best available. It echoes the statement from the Episcopal Church of the USA earlier this year that they were suspending creating any new bishops, because they’d been asked not to consecrate any more openly gay bishops. Both proposals meet the demands placed on someone by overkill – don’t consecrate a subset of people (gays, women) by not consecrating anyone at all.
I still fail to see the problem with women bishops – once we have women priests, there is no further block to their being bishops (a bishop is simply a priest writ large). And, sure enough, the “debate” over women bishops seems merely to reprise the arguments against women priests. Let’s hope that cooler heads prevail, though.
pax et bonum
God or Not?
Here’s a new twist on the old “blog carnival” idea – God or Not? is a carnival shared between theists and atheists. The idea is to encourage dialogue and mutual understanding between these groups by bringing together posts from a range of viewpoints, keeping them together by having a theme for each carnival. The first God or Not? carnival is now up, and I’d encourage you to go and have a read of the various posts. This time, the topic is that old reliable discussion starter: “Sin”. I was asked to put my oldish post Original Sin into the carnival so it’ll be interesting to see how it stacks up with the other opinions on there.
One thing – if you do go, please remember that the intention is to encourage courteous debate and mutual understanding. So, if you comment on any of the posts, please do so gently and with good humour. It’d be a shame to see this great idea collapse under a hundredweight of bile.
pax et bonum
Catching up...
The past few weeks have been a bit sparse around here. Sorry for that! The new job is really eating into my blogging time Anyhow, here’s a quick review of some interesting things I’ve come across recently.
Father Jake points out a new book that should be a very good read – Gays and the Future of Anglicanism: Responses to the Windsor Report. The book isn’t just about its titular issue, though. The writers come from a range of viewpoints including justice for gays, opposition to centralization and the need for legitimate moral diversity within Anglicanism.
Richard over at Imagine takes an interesting look at the book of Job.
Mike of Waving or Drowning? pointed me to an article that talks about how three-quarters of Americans apparently believe that “God helps those who helps themselves” is a quote from the Bible (hint: it’s not!), and about what the consequences of that are.
Finally, Sven is starting a mini-series of blog posts on the Orthodox approach to prayer.
pax et bonum
I’ve decided to give NaNoWriMo a go. Not heard of it? It’s a crazy thing that’s been going for a few years now. The name stands for “National Novel Writing Month” (although “National” isn’t really accurate any more, given its worldwide membership) and the idea is that, during the month of November, you sign up to write 50 000 words of fiction – a short novel. You can’t write anything before the month starts, and you submit your result at the end for an automated word count to verify whether or not you’ve made the target.
Track with co.mments
Track with del.icio.us
