Why is Barth so bad?

I recently read an article by John Morrison: "Scripture as word of God: Evangelical assumption or evangelical question?" Trinity Journal (1999): http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3803/is_199910/ai_n8873525/pg_1


Morrison disapproves of Barthian, evangelical attempts to reserve the term "word of God" for Christ, evangelical gestures to talk about scripture as being "a witness to Christ" and so forth. He says, "The theological result is not merely a Scripture that points to the Word of God (Christ), like John the Baptist in the Grunewald altarpiece, nor a Scripture that 'becomes' the Word and which the Word of God breaks through in order to meet us as 'I to Thou,' nor a Scripture that 'brings' or 'conveys' the Word of God to us; nor even a Scripture 'in which' the Word of God can be found somewhere." His conclusion is this:


"Given that Jesus Christ, incarnate, eternal Word of God, is said to be the utterly unique, supreme, objective self-giving of God to be known; that the scriptural data also speak of their own proper status as revelation or Word of God; that Scripture is distinguished from Christ as "witness" to Christ; and, finally, that God's revelation is one because God is one, then we must avoid a flat, blank, undifferentiated identity between Jesus Christ and Scripture as being Word of God in the same sense. We must also avoid dualistic, disjunctive thinking that finally separates Christ the Word and inscripturated Word, as though the latter were actually word of man and at best only functionally Word of God. The need is for unitary, interactive thinking, as reflected in twentieth century physics, which can think after the identity-in-difference inherent in our question.

For example, in Physics and Reality, Einstein accounts for different 'levels' or 'strata' of knowledge in a scientific system arising from natural cognition of ordinary experience. Scientific theory must be brought to 'logical' unity, and finally to a strict 'higher level' of logical unity, as each level of knowledge is related to and grounded in the 'higher' level. In this way, thinking penetrates more and more toward the interior connections of reality. Each level is 'open up' to the next higher level and 'disclosive' down. No level below has its whole truth in itself, but is true as it is interactively related to and 'open up' to the greater refinement at the next higher level. All is grounded finally beyond the contingent in that sufficient reason for the lower contingent order of rationality and intelligibility.

This model has been effectively related to the Nicene homoousion, reflecting unitary, interactive relatedness, identity-in-difference. And so too is such a stratified model reflective of the incarnate Word-inscripturated Word relationship. At the "lower level," historical Scripture is the written, preserved record of revelation, the "derivative" Word of God, by means of inspiration. As such, it stands in, under, of, and from Jesus Christ. Its truth is not simply in itself but, as "open up" unitarily in and under Christ by the Spirit, its truth is ultimately grounded in Christ the ontological Word, i.e., in the Logos, and so finally in the perichoretic relations of the triune Godhead. Then also the inscripturated Word is "disclosive down" and within the present historical space-time situation of humanity. "


There is a footnote in this pericope that points the reader to three works by T. F. Torrance. I decided to look up the reference to The Ground and Grammar of Theology. There Torrance boldly proclaims that this new relational way of thinking has already been achieved by Karl Barth, "when with herculean effort he brought together the ancient emphasis upon the acts of God in his being, and thus integrated in a remarkable way the whole history of Christian thought." (pp. 11-12) Torrance thinks that Barth is the epitome of this kind of thinking. Applied to scripture the relation looks like this:

"And it was in this way that under the creative impact of divine revelation there emerged the unique genre of literature handed down to us in the gospels and epistles of the New Testament upon which God's self-revelation as Father, Son and Holy Spirit has imprinted itself, so that they convey to us proclamation and teaching which are implicitly trinitarian. It is as such that the gospels and epistles continue under God to mediate his revelation to us in history, and to be the canonical vehicles of the living Word of God to mankind. They are to be uniquely revered and interpreted as Holy Scripture inspired by the Holy Spirit in the apostolic foundation of the Church to be the written form whereby the Word of God may be communicated to people in history through the preaching and teaching of the Church in such a way that it continues to generate faith in Jesus Christ and his Gospel...

In recent years, however, the New Testament has too often suffered from hermeneutical methods governed by damaging dualist and analytical epistemologies in which form and being, or structure and substance, have been torn apart, with the result that the gospels and epistles and other books that comprise it become severed from their deep roots in divine revelation and thereby lose the consistene substructure that holds them conceptually and meaninfully together. Here we have sadly breaking through the teaching of the Church once again the epistemological dualism that infected late Patristic, Medieval, and Enlightenment thought and disrupted the doctrine of the Trinity by driving a wedge between the historical and ontological factors or ingredients in God's triune self-revelation through Christ and in the Spirit, so that an understanding of what God is for us is severed from what God is in himself." (T. F. Torrance, The Christian Doctrine of God, One Being Three Persons. [T. & T. Clark Publishers, 2002], 35.)

Morrison warns against separating scripture from Christ, the Word of God, by disallowing the scriptures to be called the Word of God. He claims that it is not necessary to separate the two "words." In other words, theologians who do do it must give a good reason for doing so and in Morrison's article he tries to show that the reasons Barthian evangelicals give are not good ones. Aside from the fact that Morrison seems to be telling Barthian evangelicals that they are not being Barthian enough when it comes to Scripture, I am taken by a telling observation that Morrison makes in the context of an observation that Dan Wallace makes on another occasion. Morrison: "But, again, does this distinction of Christ the Word from Scripture's testimony necessarily alleviate its continuity and nuanced identity with the Word as Word of God? No. Indeed, the Holy Spirit, too, bears witness to Christ."

Dan Wallace relates in Whose Afraid of the Holy Spirit? "One lady in my church facetiously told me, 'I believe in the Trinity: the Father, Son and Holy Bible.' Sadly, too many cessationalists operate as though that were so." (p. 8) He goes on to chide evangelicals for being so hard on Barth's bibliological proposals and not paying more attention to his christocentrism: "[F]or in our zeal to show his deficiencies in his doctrine of the Bible we have become bibliolaters in the process." [This chapter is an address Wallace gave when he was president of the ETS-southwest region.]

Is one of the main reasons why Barth has become the whipping dog of evangelical cessationalists because they need the Bible to be their Holy Spirit?

Non-inerrantists and their inerrantist comrades

I have had an exceptionally tough time with church since leaving inerrancy behind. Maybe it's all those times well-meaning laypeople have told me that there's something more vibrant and special about the inerrantist's faith that rarely appears in the faith of the non-inerrantist. Inerrancy to me is much more than a single doctrine, it's a whole mindset to religion that becomes a burden to the soul, a mindset, I might add, that non-inerrantist churches can very easily retain even if they happen to formally deny the doctrine of inerrancy. I have been trying to work through for a number of years now how a non-inerrantist mindset might get along in an evangelical church that conducts its services and other operations through the assumptions of the inerrantist mindset, whether or not inerrancy is explicitly part of the package. The ecclesial dynamic seems to me to be extremely complex and takes an exceptional amount of patience to functionally work through, an amount of patience, I regret to say, that I have not yet been able to muster.

"Non-inerrantists often assert that inerrantists betray a basic insecurity about a faith based solely on the Christ's word of promise. But if some inerrantists fearfully yearn for a greater certainty, the only adequate and faithful response is the proclamation of the Gospel's 'fear not' spoken in the name of Jesus. The 'fear not' cannot be addressed in the name of assured scholarship and surely it is inappropriate to respond with a barrage of 'difficult' passages. Secondly, if some inerrantists stifle the freedom of the Gospel, the response must be the continued proclamation--in word and deed--of the freedom of the Gospel. If that does not 'work,' then perhaps non-inerrantists should argue with God, not the inerrantists. Being a noninerrantist does not protect the freedom of the Gospel--that is the gift of the Holy Spirit and only the Spirit can maintain it.

Inerrantists ought not be dismissed as simply uninformed or sectarian. Many of their arguments present an occasion for non-inerrantists to ask hard questions of themselves. To adapt Karl Barth's comment on D. F. Strauss, inerrantists may simply be the bad conscience of modern theology." (Richard Nysse, "Inerrancy: Questions from Its Advocates," Word & World 7/3 [1987]: 301, http://www.luthersem.edu/word&world/Archives/7-3_Wisdom/7-3_Face_to_Face.pdf)

The non-inerrantist must still deal with the inerrantists' questions seems to be the pastoral wisdom coming from many quarters. But one of the main benefits of becoming a non-inerrantist in the first place is that the inerrantist problematic no longer bears upon the conscience as it once did. So how are non-inerrantists supposed to commune with their inerrantist partners-in-crime? By reliving the very problematic from which they resolved to become free? This doesn't make any sense. The grievance seems to me, then, to be chiefly with God in this matter of dealing with inerrantists in church and school and wherever in a diplomatic way, not primarily with the inerrantist (or with non-inerrantists for that matter). This really is quite a pickle, and not one that I'm happy to know about.

Questions and more questions

I remember when I first read Bernard Ramm's A Christian View of Science and Scripture that I felt so relieved that I had finally found a book by a prominent evangelical that tells people what I had secretly thought had to be right all along. The six-day creation scheme has it all wrong and the NASA finding regarding the missing day in astrological time (that supposedly accounted for the extra day that resulted from God telling the sun to stand still in Josh 10) had no documented support. FINALLY, someone telling people openly what had become for many a spiritual crime of the highest degree to entertain in secret, much less express in words (forgot about actually publishing it).

But I also remember how I felt when I got to his recommendation for how to proceed in the future. He proposed theistic evolution as the way forward, and I remember thinking, "Oh no, you've got to be kidding me!" And with that I shut the book and re-entrenched myself in the six-day inerrantist tradition. Perhaps (if I am permitted to generalize on the basis of my own experience) people are quite willing to read about doubts that they harbor in secret, but they are not nearly as willing to concede where those doubts may lead if they are ever faced up to. It led Ramm to "concede too much to science" according to many a reviewer. I was not yet ready for Ramm's advice. That would take me many more years.

"In 1969 Ramm contributed the lead article to a JASA symposium issue on 'The Relationship Between the Bible and Science' (D 1969). Here his contextual approach is evident in a section entitled the 'Importance of Context' where he discusses problems related to biblical inerrancy. He notes that 'the special nature of a document means that error must be discussed within the context of the specialty of the document' (p. 100). He makes 'a distinction between the structural and cultural forms that revelation comes through, and the revelation itself. The revelation does not dignify the structure into the category of the revelational.' He concludes that 'when we make a distinction between the modality in which a revelation comes and the teaching of the revelation itself, there is no contradiction between modern scientific pictures or models and Biblical revelation' (p. 101).

The contextual view is applied to the Genesis account of creation in Ramm's summary of Barth's approach to the issue of Genesis and science in After Fundamentalism (1983:152-154). 'His first step is to let the Genesis record stand as it is, a product of the prescientific world with its prescientific cosmologies.' Barth is not concerned about the different cosmological perspectives in Genesis 1 and 2 or other cosmologies throughout scripture. His second point is 'that this multiplicity should not distress us. Christian theologians have used all kinds of cosmologies... There is no common cosmology behind sacred Scripture.' This point recognizes the shifting paradigms throughout the history of science, so that the world view of the biblical writers need no longer be an embarrassment.

His third point is 'that these texts (Genesis 1-3) are the Word of God. The Word of God is "in, with, and under" the cosmology. The cosmology is not the Word of God, but the message within the cosmology is the Word of God. Revelation does not intend to teach science, and therefore the Word of God is independent of the cosmology.' The fourth step is to remember that 'If scientists do their work in theory construction within the limits of the data themselves, scientists will never say anything contrary to the Word of God,' and 'If theologians restrict themselves to the Word of God and pure theological statements ...then theologians will never say anything contrary to science.' If science and theology are governed in their methodology by the nature and context of the subject matter they investigate 'the conflict between science and theology" would be removed.' (J. L. Spradley, "Changing Views of Science and Scripture: Bernard Ramm and the ASA" PSCF 44 (March 1992): 2-9, http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1992/PSCF3-92Spradley.html)

But what if the fourth step does not work? What if one cannot keep saying to himself, "Hey, we have to agree with Scripture (whatever that means) since not all the evidence is in yet"? What if one begins to wonder whether what one is really doing when he says, "All the evidence is not yet in," is a form of special pleading? What if one becomes convinced of things contrary to theology based on scholarship performed independently and on the evidence produced by it? Furthermore, what if one realizes that theology done on its own turf has yielded a plethora of theologies among which there is no prospect of a consensus in sight? What does one do then?

Under the shadow of inerrantist apologetics

"Newman, after all, could argue his way to Rome without inviting real danger, since the Protestant tradition of liberty of interpretation gave ample freedom for a change of faith. The case was different with Renan and Loisy. They were members of an ecclesiastical institution insisting upon its divinely appointed authority in the realm of faith and morals and maintaining officially that the mere claim of reason to scrutinize its dogma constituted gross error...Their lives, until they made the break with Rome, were fulfilments of Renan's famous simile of the liberal theologian as a bird that has had its wings clipped...Both came to see, gradually, that the unfettered pursuit of scholarship was incompatible with the temper of organized Catholicism. 'My dream,' wrote Renan, 'was the peaceable life of a laborious ecclesiastic--Reid or Malebranche--attached to his duties, relieved from his parish work on account of the value of his researches. Not until later did I perceive--with that degree of certainty which soon was to leave my mind no room for choice--the essential contradiction between these metaphysical studies and the Christian religion.' A similar dream in Loisy was shattered by a similar recognition of contradiction. 'Being convinced,' he said, 'that theological orthodoxy could not in the long run prevail against scientific truth, but would be forced to reckon with it and acoomodate to it, I did not think that the fact of having lost confidence in the absolute value of traditional dogmas unfitted me for the teaching of exegesis in a Catholic faculty...The great--I might say only--difficulty, against which I was to be broken, was real, substantial and living; it was the authority, or rather the tyranny, which in Roman Catholicism has supplanted, not only the Scriptures, but even tradition, and which aims at the domination of thought, history and politics." (Gordon K. Lewis, "From Faith to Skepticism; A Note on Three Apologetics," The Journal of Politics 13 (1951): 185-186.)

I remember when I was at Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary that the slogan for the school was: "Where the spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." But, as I argue in my book, it is a mission impossible to pursue scholarship under the shadow of inerrantist apologetics. Professors of religion have told me face to face at AAR meetings and elsewhere that the main reason they leave their variety of evangelicalism is that they eventually come to the realization that the only way they were ever really allowed to do scholarship of a serious kind was to research with surreptitious intentions of finding some new vantage from which to bolster the faith. That sounds like "aim[ing] at the domination of thought, history and politics" to me.

It's hard to pursue studies when one feels like he or she always has to remember to protect the faith from every noise in the wind. Inerrantism began to give me that Big Brother feeling: go ahead and pursue your studies, but be sure to perform the scholarship under the shadow of apologetics. It seems to me that if that mentality continues to be nourished in evangelical schools, then the forms of scholarship produced will differ little, each in their own way, from "thoughtful but semicritical paraphrase[s] of the biblical narrative." (Kenton Sparks description of Provan, et. al, A Biblical History of Israel. [Westminster John Knox, 2003], http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/5555_5849.pdf)

The structure of Pete Enns' doctrinal revolution

In 2006 I exchanged some emails with Paul Helm regarding my book. He explained to me that he had serious misgivings about a "difficulties first" approach to constructing a doctrine of scripture. At first I thought this was the old contest between deductive and inductive approaches to scripture, but I think the dispute touches upon something more fundamental than that. It's not so much that I am imprudently opting for a problems first approach. It seems to me more helpful to say that I have bought into inerrantism as the dominant paradigm for understanding scripture for as long as I can remember and I have gradually and inevitably been driven to a state of crisis:

"Let us then assume that crises are a necessary precondition for the emergence of novel theories and ask next how scientists respond to their existence. Part of the answer, as obvious as it is important, can be discovered by noting first what scientists never do when confronted by even severe and prolonged anomalies. Though they may begin to lose faith and then to consider alternatives, they do not renounce the paradigm that has led them into crisis. They do not, that is, treat anomalies as counterinstances, though in the vocabulary of philosophy of science that is what they are...[O]nce it has achieved the status of paradigm, a scientific theory is declared invalid only if an alternate candidate is available to take its place...The decision to reject one paradigm is always simultaneously the decision to accept another, and the judgment leading to that decision involves the comparison of both paradigms with nature and with each other...

The reasons for doubt sketched above were purely factual; they were, that is, themselves counterinstances to a prevalent epistemological theory. As such, if my present point is correct, they can at best help to create a crisis or, more accurately, to reinforce one that is already very much in existence. By themselves they cannot and will not falsify that philosophical theory, for its defenders will do what we have already seen scientists doing when confronted by anomaly. They will devise numerous articulations and ad hoc modifications of their theory in order to eliminate any apparent conflict...If, therefore, these epistemological counterinstances are to constitute more than a minor irritant, that will be because they help to permit the emergence of a new and different analysis of science within which they are no longer a source of trouble." Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 3rd ed. (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1996), 77-78, italics in original.

I am not starting with problems (and neither is Enns for that matter, whose book Helm has reviewed online in two installments). [I ultimately speak for myself here, but maybe, just maybe, what I say will apply to Enns' book as well.] I am starting with the received inerrantist tradition. A series of anomalies has driven me to various stages of crisis. Now I am in the process of searching for an alternative. I have already gone the route of defending the reigning paradigm, but I think there is a better alternative to be found. There is no problem of method here: this is a perfectly natural development for believers studying scripture within the context of a "normal" paradigm.

The stage in which I find myself now [and maybe Enns does, too] I think can be described as follows: "When...an anomaly comes to seem more than just another puzzle of normal science, the transition to crisis and to extraordinary science has begun. The anomaly itself now comes to be more generally recognized as such by the profession. More and more attention is devoted to it by more and more of the field's most eminent men. If it still continues to resist, as it usually does not, many of them may come to view its resolution as the subject matter of their discipline. For them the field will no longer look quite the same as it had earlier." Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 82-83, italics in original.

[Pete Enns is one of the most eminent men in his field. It is nothing less than a disgrace that he has to suffer the ignominy that his colleagues are currently putting him through.]

Helm writes: "The (consistently Christian) answer to these questions should be obvious. We formulate our doctrine from attending (no doubt fallibly) only to Scripture’s own explicit statements on the matter, returning time and again to check and modify our first thoughts by the data of Scripture in a never-ending iterative process. And then we wrestle with the problems in the light of our understanding of these statements. In the mercy of God, the doctrine (along with other doctrines) will illuminate the problems; the problems never control the doctrine." (http://paulhelmsdeep.blogspot.com/2008/01/analysis-extra-inspiration-and.html)

This is precisely what I think Enns has done. I think Kuhn again explains well what is happening:
"Debates over theory-choice cannot be cast in a form that fully resembles logical or mathematical proof. In the latter, premises and rules of inference are stipulated from the start. If there is disagreement about conclusions, the parties to the ensuing debate can retrace their steps one by one, checking each against prior stipulation. At the end of that process one or the other must concede that he has made a mistake, violated a previously accepted rule. After that concession he has no recourse, and his opponent's proof is then compelling. Only if the two discover instead that they differ about the meaning or application of stipulated rules, that their prior agreement provides no sufficient basis for proof, does the debate continue in the form it inevitably takes during scientific revolutions. That debate is about premises, and its recourse is to persuasion as a prelude to the possibility of proof." Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 199.

In the present context, problems are illuminating the doctrine of inerrancy, not controlling it. One facet of the Enns predicament that Kuhn's study seems to describe quite well is this: "That process is persuasion, but it presents a deeper problem. Two men who perceive the same situation differently but nevertheless employ the same vocabulary in its discussion must be using words differently. They speak, that is, from what I have called incommensurable viewpoints." (p. 200)

OT specialists, NT specialists, theology specialists, philosophy specialists, trying to talk to each other. What a mess! I think Helm has every right to chime in on the debate, being a professional philosopher of exceptional caliber. WTS theologists also have a right, as do other NT specialists. That said, Enns' theorizing takes place in the OT specialist world and there is some distance to bridge to get to his work and "translate" it for someone who concedes he's "not an OT anything" (Helm's self-description, which would also describe the bulk of Enns' intended audience). The trick is to mediate the distance that separates the disciplines without imperialistic effects, for Enns appears to be doing some extraordinary science. So, yes, philosophy might profitably help lead the way toward a meaningful discussion (although the Helm-Enns exchange seems to question this), but if Kuhn is correct and ultimately the exchange is one of persuasion, it becomes much easier to understand why some at WTS feel compelled to use force to try to ensure that they eventually win the day.

On two common arguments for inerrancy

A case for inerrancy is made in Stephen L. Andrew, "Biblical Inerrancy," Chafer Theological School Journal 8 (2002): 2-21, by marshalling an epistemological and a biblical argument.

"[I]f inerrantists argue deductively...(and, unfortunately, many have), then the argument is
indeed circular and fallacious.

What follows is a tricky and involved philosophical discussion, but we will try to be concise. We believe the philosophical problem can ultimately be solved on the basis of primary inductive historical investigation and subsequent deductive argumentation. That is to say, we first determine the likelihood that the historical Jesus of Nazareth made such statements as are recorded in Matthew 5:18 and John 10:35. This is a fundamentally inductive exercise.
The next step is to prove (once again, inductively, on the basis of historical investigation) the likelihood that Jesus of Nazareth both predicted His own death and resurrection, and that
He then in fact died and rose from the dead. On this inductively derived basis it is logical to conclude that He is who He claimed to be. For our purposes in this article, it is enough that He claimed to be authoritative in His teaching, and His teaching included the idea that the Hebrew Scriptures are inerrant and that the future ministry of the Holy Spirit would include the authoritative teaching of “all things” to Christ’s hand-picked apostles, who in turn wrote the
New Testament. Once these facts are established inductively, one can move to deductive arguments and ultimately prove that all of Scripture is inerrant." (p. 16)

This inerrantist argument forces inerrantists to insist upon apostolic connections to each book in scripture. This really paints inerrantists into a corner: they must continually fight evidence to the contrary with all their gusto, else the faith is lost. Hebrews, Revelation and Luke-Acts are not apostolic. 1-3 John are disputable. Several Pauline letters had co-authors; some are decidedly pseudonymous. There is also the matter that Christ was probably not in a cultural position to begin teaching limited inerrancy or some comparable position. Science was not yet developed enough, nor were people historically conscious. Another matter to consider is that Christ seems to have thought that the end of the world would happen within a generation. Without doubting that God the Son is omniscient, I think inerrantists are making too many presumptions regarding what Christ knew and how he knew what he knew.

How do inerrantists know that Christ had one person and two natures? Did scripture teach them that? I think not. How do they know that he knew everything there is to know? How does this knowing take place in the first place? All Christians should freely admit that when it comes down to it there's an awful lot of speculation when it comes to the incarnation, and also when we contemplate how God can know at all. I think inerrantists definitely go too far when filling in the blanks. It's not that they shouldn't try to fill in blanks, it's just that they so often do so with far more "certainty" than is reasonable given the amount of mystery that surrounds the incarnation.

"...[B]ecause inerrantists argue that Scripture will be found errorless when all the data is in, opponents have charged them with making an unfalsifiable claim. This is a false charge of fallacy, however. Inerrantists do not claim that inerrancy is unfalsifiable in principle—only that certain facts are missing in particular cases. In such cases, to argue (as some limited inerrantists do) that inerrancy has been proved false is an argument from silence. Third, opponents have zlaimed that inerrantists do not do justice to the human element of Scripture. Humans make mistakes, and since Scripture is co-authored by God and man, should we not expect minor human errors? To the contrary: a product of God ipso facto cannot contain error." (p. 18)

I argue in my book that there is no ipso facto reason that a product of God cannot contain error. In this case, I think, inerrantists presume too much. Consider the following possibilities: 1) A tact I take might be called theodicy (at least from a vantage that pays such a premium on "errors" in the Bible). God may have allowed "errors" in the Bible knowing that the good achieved by them (written witness to the gospel of Jesus Christ) outweighs the bad (false beliefs about the beginning of the universe, readers mistaking midrash for objective historical reports). 2) God might not view "errors" as an imperfection, maybe certain knowledge of historical and scientific truths do not rank high on his list of things to communicate to humans. 3) "True" accounts would not have been understood by thousands of years worth of human civilization, until modern science and other more modern academic developments. Even if these three don't sway inerrantists, they illustrate for present purposes that there's nothing ipso facto about errors in God's "product." Just because these three considerations don't convince inerrantists does not mean that they are not real possibilities.

(On the "inerrancy is falsifiable" argument, see yesterday's post.)

Follow the evidence wherever it leads?

After writing the previous post I thought to add a remark about how one of the only books inerrantists are allowed to read regarding the historicity of the exodus is James Hoffmeier's Israel in Egypt: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition (Oxford, 1999). There's a JETS review of the book that begins with the following words:

"Hoffmeier's new work is a necessary corrective to the current trend in Biblical scholarship characterized by the heavy use of anthropological and sociological models and by a hypercritical attitude toward the OT. His stated aim is to follow the evidence where it leads, and he concludes that there is no need for skepticism regarding the essential historicity of the rise of Joseph to power in Egypt, the sojourn and bondage of Israel in Egypt, and the accounts of the exodus." (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3817/is_199912/ai_n8853391)

I can't help but see a problem with the way all this is framed. I don't think inerrantists can ever really say that they will follow evidence wherever it leads. They can only pledge that they will make sure that the available evidence proves the Bible right (or is at least consistent with it). In fact, they are forced to do this; they cannot do otherwise. For inerrantists have been told in advance (by God himself through scripture) that evidence can never do anything negative, it can only show the Bible right.

When I read Hoffmeier a few years ago, I remember taking away from him that although there is not much evidence for the exodus tradition, an exodus cannot be ruled out on the basis of evidence we have. He did not have much constructive to say. I guess there's a fine line between following evidence wherever it leads and using the resources available to show where evidence does not lead: to the falsification of the scriptures. (Contrast Hoffmeier with D. Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times. [Princeton, 1993].)

If Jesus' bones were found in the Middle East, I mean undeniably traceable to the Jesus Christ of the Bible (say, by DNA or something), what would inerrantists do? Would they concede a point or devise an explanation? I presume the latter because the mindset's very strict: Don't concede a point. Scripture's always right. THE BIBLE NEVER FAILS.

Truth is a two-way street

Dewey Beegle was the man inerrantists sought to beat a generation ago. His Scripture, Tradition and Infallibility was the book that all inerrantists wanted to prove wanting. Yet I have to say the concluding paragraph in his chapter, "Inerrancy and the Phenomena of Scripture," will likely ring true with a number of young evangelicals:

"Truth is a two-way street or a double-edged sword. Although facts confirm the biblical record in many instances, they also disprove it in other cases. In the last analysis, we must let the truth cut both ways. The true biblical view of inspiration must account for all the evidence of Scripture. The peril of the view of inerrancy is its rigidity and all-or-nothing character. If only one of the illustrations discussed in this chapter is correct, the doctrine is invalidated." (p. 197)

That is a lot of pressure (too much for many). Every new finding, every new discovery, every new theory is potentially a threat to the inerrantist faith--and not only a threat, but also a potential faith demolisher. One fell swoop the entire scripture comes crashing down because it's all or nothing. And many times with inerrancy also goes the faith. This in itself helps account for the insularity of a number of evangelical churches in the States. It's not just that every new discovery brings with it some new piece of information, it's that with every new finding the whole faith hangs in the balance, thanks to the inerrantist ultimatum. That's why we have to wait to hear what the evangelical biblical scholars have to say, what the evangelical archaeologists have to say, what the evangelical anthropologists have to say, and what the evangelical biologists have to say, etc., before accepting some new piece of information. (Inerrantists who don't like the Roman Catholic church because of their rigid, hierarchical authority network have a tantamount authority schema right in their backyards.)

On my copy of Beegle's book, there's an endorsement by F. F. Bruce that reads:

"Dr. Beegle has rearranged and amplified his material and struck a more positive note. I endorse as emphatically as I can his depreciating of a Maginot-line mentality where the doctrine of Scripture is concerned."

That's F. F. Bruce saying this...F. F. Bruce!

Religious experience not inerrancy

The questions raised by yesterday's considerations trouble me to no end. What is the faith based on then, if it's not the Bible and apparently not on evidence? The only answer that I could come up with is "religious experience," that is, religious experience understood in the framework of the historic Christian tradition. That would mean that a sense of God or encounter with God interpreted culturally through the meta-narrative of the Christian story is what gets one to buy into Christianity. Although I am not entirely satisfied with this answer to the question, I am convinced that that has to be the only way one can proceed. I am relieved to see, though, that other prominent Christian thinkers have come to the same conclusion.

William Lane Craig:
"I received a fellowship from the German government to study the resurrection of Jesus under the direction of Wolfhart Pannenberg and Ferdinand Hahn at the University of Munich and at Cambridge University. As a result of my studies, I became even more convinced of the historical credibility of that event. Of course, ever since my conversion, I believed in the resurrection of Jesus on the basis of my personal experience, and I still think this experiential approach to the resurrection is a perfectly valid way to knowing that Christ has risen. It’s the way that most Christians today know that Jesus is risen and alive. But as a result of my studies, I came to see that a remarkably good case can be made for Jesus’ resurrection historically as well, and I hope to show tonight that the resurrection of Jesus is the best explanation of certain well-established facts about Jesus. " (http://www.holycross.edu/departments/crec/website/resurrection-debate-transcript.pdf)

Experience, first, in the context of a Christian tradition. That is, God reaches out to us through the Christian lifeworld: other Christians, tradition, scripture, Holy Spirit. Next, we investigate the matter, the evidence proves not overwhelmingly against it: belief is able to withstand critical scrutiny. That means, faith comes first, and investigation second. That has to be how it goes. Not faith first, inerrancy second and then investigation third. That's where the problems start. Inerrancy can't come right after faith (as it does for a number of evangelicals) because inerrancy can't withstand the scrutiny, then the faith falls apart.

Infallible in faith and practice

Once I dropped inerrancy I defaulted to a controversial position that holds that scripture is infallible in matters of faith and practice only. I thought to myself the Bible was given to tell the gospel story: it should only be considered authoritative insofar as what the Bible says deals with the gospel. This makes a lot of sense to me. But lately I've been having some doubts about this position; there is something about it that is deeply dissatisfying. Bibliology always has to be done, unfortunately, with one eye toward apologetics. If a non-inerrantist retreats to a position that says that the Bible is authoritative only in matters of faith and practice, that's like saying the Bible has been given to us by God, but it is only authoritative in those matters that are not empirically testable (matters of faith and practice). That seems to me like a BIG problem. I certainly would not accept such a position from any other religionist. I would think that they are only trying to save their religion at all costs by contriving their faith in such a way so that it is immune to criticism. What kind of faith is that? By parity of reasonning, why in the world should it be acceptable for a non-inerrantist to make such a move--deliberately exempting Christianity from all criticism? If I saw someone from another religion adjust his religious belief ad hoc in this way, I would certainly not be impressed. So the "infallible in faith and practice" position may have some serious problems associated with it that should be taken into consideration.

Inerrant traditions

"We affirm that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatico-historical exegesis, taking account of its literary forms and devices, and that Scripture is to interpret Scripture.

We deny the legitimacy of any treatment of the text or quest for sources lying behind it that leads to relativizing, dehistoricizlng, or discounting its teaching, or rejecting its claims to authorship." (The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, Article XVIII)

Inerrantists frequently try to skirt the issue that to get to an allegedly originally inerrant text requires an inerrant biblical hermeneutics. Grammatico-historical exegesis is commonly proffered as the way to get to scripture, in order that the amount of eisegesis involved be somehow reduced to some acceptable minimum. (Let's not forget that evangelical bibliological construction is [must!] always done with one eye toward apologetics.)

In my book I try to show that the inerrant teachings in question never turn out to be the direct teachings of scripture. On the contrary, they turn out to be the rather arbitrary interpretive judgment calls of the leaders in the inerrantist evangelical tradition--it does not matter what part of that tradition in which one happens to find him(her)self. Catholics are a little more perceptive here (and much freer to raise the issue):

"In conclusion, there is no plain sense of Scripture as many Evangelicals understand the phrase. However, Scripture becomes more plain when read in the context of the Apostolic Church, but outside of this context, the true meaning may or may not be plain to the average reader. Unfortunately, usually when someone says 'just read Scripture and its plain meaning,' she means 'read the Bible like I read it, which is plain enough to me (obviously), and if your "plain reading" doesn't line up with my "plain reading," you are deceived or even stupid' even though the message is supposedly plain to begin with! This is the ultimate problem I have with appealing to the generic 'plain meaning' of Scripture." (http://www.ancient-future.net/plainmeaning.html)

And so what we have really is "inerrant" traditions fighting "inerrant" traditions, all putatively proclaiming what the Bible says plainly. This is not exactly what I signed up for when I first bought in to inerrantist Christianity. We are all catholics at heart when it comes down to it, standing on the promises of our traditions.

Not because of peer pressure

After returning home from the conference in Mexico, it occurred to me just how off the mark those evangelicals are who accuse non-inerrantists of becoming non-inerrantists because of peer pressure. At least in my case, it certainly is not the case that a non-inerrantist position has become more acceptable to maintain, whether socially, academically, pastorally, or spiritually. If anything, a non-inerrantist evangelical position on scripture seems even harder to sustain because now not only does one have all the liberal "enemies" that one had when one was an inerrantist, but now one also has the inerrantists, too, who are adamantly against you. So whatever benefits there may be from becoming a non-inerrantist, freedom from peer pressure does not seem to me to be one of them.

It's a long slippery slope

The slippery slope away from "true" Christianity and down toward outright unbelief is longer and much more complicated than many suppose. For inerrantist evangelicals, I have been told over and again that signs of trouble start as soon as one entertains the slightest doubt that scripture is not inerrant. It is interesting to note, though, that from the vantage of a person who is a rather long ways down the legendary slippery slope, entertaining that scripture might not be inerrant and still believing that the scripture is inerrant amount to the same thing--there is only a negligible difference, if any, between the two positions as far as they can see. The fact is that the slippery slope is much more involved than inerrantist evangelicals are willing to imagine. After denying inerrancy, there is only a very short time before one is no longer Christian, or, at the very least, one won't be as strong of a Christian--or so some inerrantist churches and seminaries tend to insinuate to their congregations and student bodies.

I gave a paper yesterday at an international conference on “The Re-Enchantment of Nature across Disciplines: Critical Intersections of Science, Ethics, and Metaphysics,” in Morelia, Mexico. My paper was on why religious people do not trust science. During the discussion time, one process theologian offered some thoughts on how academicians might make science more palatable to religious believers by trying to change the way people understand the divine. Another scholar's opinion was that my paper only raised a red herring and that people who know better will not be goaded into a supernatural vs. natural antithesis when thinking about the science and religion interface. He explained that my paper was a prime example of how American Christians preoccupy themselves with "problems" that others throughout the rest of the world have no interest in. Americans' view of the science and religion dialogue on the whole is quite skewed; many people get by just fine with their religious and scientific knowledge co-existing peacefully side by side. What happened next is what reminded me of just how long the slippery slope really is.

The discussion then moved on to how religion should be reconceptualized and understood as any sense of mystery that effects a distortion of time consciousness, altered states of reality, or some other awareness of transcendence. Then the discussion revisted a paper given earlier on how the origins of religion can be traced back to the neural reward system associated with the runner's high: running as religious experience. Attention was also drawn to a series of articles just published in the December issue of the JAAR. The articles consider whitewater kayaking, fly fishing, and surfing as religious experiences. I protested that what's missing in each of these examples is a notion of agency, a notion of mystery that has to do with the existence of a divine person(s)--an aspect of religion that is really non-negotiable for the majority of religious persons in the world. Why was it that such a salient feature of religion was being systematically avoided at a session at a conference that was supposed to be devoted to religion, nature, and culture?

Afterwards, a religious studies professor came over to me to explain that the reason why academia has no interest in the conflict model between science and religion--even if it is the model that is taken for granted at a grassroots level--is that academicians define their disciplines well and know precisely what each discipline is supposed to do. Theology takes as its data the religious experiences of a religious population and analyzes that data for trends and patterns in social relations and religious beliefs. I countered that I had always been taught that theology was a religious believer trying his or her best to think God's thoughts after him. The woman laughed.

The woman teaches at a religious school. She said that she thought a little more humility was in order. Academicians know the bounds of each of the disciplines and therefore do not see any need for a conflict model between science and religion. The idea of a divine agent acting in the world is not a proper part of theology, the academy already knows this--it's just that the people haven't come to that conclusion yet.

Well, I think this is a point on the journey down the slippery slope that certainly spells trouble. When the idea that one is trying to know what God wants seems laughable, when the idea that a divine agent has nothing to do with theology seems obvious (I'm talking about trying to discover these things personally, not about making sure that the whole world comports with one's ideas regarding what God wants and what kind of divine agent he is), one has reached a spot on the slippery slope that is very hard to reconcile with Christianity. But that's a long way off from questioning inerrancy and looking at the Bible for what it really is, whatever that may turn out to be.

When is enough enough?

"It is a strange by-product of recent trends in biblical scholarship that opposing forces have now joined in the effort to crush so-called "radical" critical scholarship. Now it is common that traditionally minded (meaning accepting critical results of the past) scholars, who cannot accept recent ideas and trends in biblical studies because of their own critical opinion-an absolutely legitimate position-resort to the same kind of polemics as formerly found only in conservative literature.

There may be a number of explanations for this strange fact. One may be that the majority of critical scholars originate within a religious milieu and at the bottom of their hearts are conservatives without probably realizing this. Thus, critical scholarship represents a kind of breaking away from one's own background. The changing attitude towards even more critical scholars questioning, e.g., the very existence of King David, may have to do with the fear of totally losing the tradition-after all Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem so the new David could be born there! Somehow there seem to be questions that we are not allowed to ask...


...it is never understood that we did not start with ideology. On the contrary, as historical-critical scholars of the old school, we started with critical scholarship as it used to be-trained in the European academic tradition already described-but we did not stop when the results were disconcerting and bewildering. The demolition of the history of ancient Israel proceeded along a logical line of advance from the patriarchs, via the Exodus and the conquest, over the Period of the Judges to David and his time, and the center of discussion has now moved on to the late pre-exilic, the exilic, and the post-exilic periods. It is correct that havoc followed in the wake of progress, but it was certainly not because of a preconceived ideology different from the one shared by the majority of historical-critical scholars." (Niels Peter Lemche, "Conservative Scholarship-Critical Scholarship: Or How Did We Get Caught by This Bogus Discussion?" http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Conservative_Scholarship.htm

So let's say one finally finds the strength to confess, "Ok, inerrancy is not for me." How does one decide when enough is enough? For example, one might come to the judgment that six day creation schemes do not hold any water and that the appearance of humans in evolutionary history seems to have happened in more than one geographic place at about the same time (let's just say). Is one permitted to begin asking questions about whether there really was an Adam and Eve or whether there really was a Garden or even a Fall at all? And then what does one do with the gospel story that we have taken for granted since our first days in Sunday school that Christ came to repair the consequences of Adam's (=humanity's) sin?

We already know the ire inerrantists will raise about a legendary slippery slope. But among non-inerrantists, how does one decide when enough is enough, or perhaps more importantly, why would THAT enough be enough? Does it come down to one's personality or to some personal, arbitrary critical threshold that each of us will have at very different places? Or does it all boil down to one's historically-conditioned, sociological and political moment? How much do the evolutionary developments of our brains play a part? These are the frightening discussions that very few evangelicals are presently ready to have, but "When is enough enough? (and why?)" is the only one, I think, that will allow evangelicals to existentially be able to perceive, as if for the first time, what their faith is really made of.

When religion gets in the way

"Subsequent studies by Jon H. Roberts, David N. Livingstone, and me have undermined Moore's sweeping claim about the uniqueness--or even the salience--of Calvinism, though none of us denies that distinctive theological convictions sometimes influenced how people viewed Darwin's theory. In a new introduction to his meticulously researched Darwinism and the Divine in America (1988), Roberts argues that 'the great majority of American Protestant thinkers who remained committed to orthodox formulations of Christian doctrine actually rejected Darwinism; indeed, they denounced the theory of organic evolution in any guise that described speciation in terms of naturalistic agencies.' The 'crucial determinant,' he maintains, 'was their conviction that the theory of organic evolution could not be reconciled with their views of the origin, nature, and 'fall' of man, the nature and basis of moral judgment, and a number of other doctrines--all based on their interpretation of the Scriptures.' My own research bears this out." Ronald Numbers, Science and Christianity in Pulpit and Pew. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 5.

I'm not necessarily putting a plug in here for Darwinian evolution and that it should force evangelicals to abandon inerrancy. Warfield, for example, famously bought into inerrancy and yet found that he could still be a proponent of theistic evolution. I'm simply wondering aloud, "How many times does a commitment to scripture get in the way of learning something important?"

"'Although we live in a very enlightened century, wherein all arts and sciences have been elevated nearly to their summit,' wrote a Dutch Copernican in 1772, 'one still finds many, even wise and prudent people, who cannot believe the motion of the earth...They feel that it is contrary to Scripture.'" (pp. 12-13)

How many times has inerrancy caused it to be the case that evangelicals could not even join in to a constructive conversation, much less learn some new truth?

On Reassuring the Inerrantists

"With great themes such as these we may fairly hope for there to emerge a vital new expression of evangelical respect for the Bible. Even though the strict inerrancy assumption is lacking, there remains strong confidence in God speaking infallibly in the Scriptures, so that fears about unhindered drifting into heresy from this position should seldom be realized...I think we should respect this option as a possibility for evangelical believers and not surround it with dire predictions and sharp attacks...

The militant advocates of inerrancy are aware of this threat from the liberal side, and perceive the non-inerrancy evangelicals in collusion with the effort to undermine the Bible's authority. Of course this suspicion reveals a profound lack of trust and relationships between the protagonists and should provoke wounded and pained objection, but nevertheless it is incumbent upon the objects of this suspicion to clear away all doubt by coming forward with an unmistakably strong and enthusiastic doctrine of the unique authority of the Bible, so that our preoccupation with internal infighting can give way to a more united and profound reply to the real battle for the Bible. A polarized evangelicalism cannot fulfil her Godgiven mission in the world." (Clark Pinnock, "The Ongoing Struggle Over Biblical Inerrancy," http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1979/JASA6-79Pinnock.html)

Some time ago (and even today), Pinnock called for non-inerrantists to come up with an "unmistakably strong and enthusiastic doctrine of the unique authority of the Bible." I suggest in my book that once younger evangelicals find the strength to wheedle their way out of the straightjacket of inerrancy, they should reassess their beliefs and gradually try to pick up the pieces, as it were. Some inerrantists are eager to point out that no plausible God-honoring alternative to inerrancy has yet been set forth. I suggest that younger evangelicals can revisit the topic of scripture in the future when they are ready and try to sort out their options without feeling like God is now pressuring them to get it right or that he now disapproves of them. There may very well be some (or a lot of) social pressure that they feel to immediately replace inerrancy with something "better," yet I can't help but think that this pressure, whether real or imagined is an impossible trap, a sort of non-inerrantist, spiritual delusion that a non-inerrantist alternative in bibliology could ever be formulated to the inerrantists' satisfaction. Watch out for this!

Guilt Trips

Scott Oliphint writes: "There are two and only two classes of people in the world. Such has always been the case. Such will always be the case. There are those who know God and love him because they have been called out of darkness into his marvelous light. There are those who know God and hate him because they refuse to acknowledge the truth that is known, and that worship and serve the creature (Rom. 1:18ff.). There is no third party, no 'honest seeker,' no 'confused questioner.'" ("Cornelius Van Til and the Reformation of Christian Apologetics," in Revelation and Reason, ed. K. S. Oliphint and L. G. Tipton [P&R Publishing, 2007], 281-282.)

Those who know and love God know he's sovereign.

Those who know and love God know he is the author of truth.

Those who know and love God know the Bible is God's Word (because it says so).

Those who know and love God know that the Bible MUST BE inerrant.

If you disagree with any of this, it's not the case that you don't know God. It's worse. You know God and you hate him. This, I think, is the mother of all guilt trips because anyone trying to get out from under it is doing nothing but demonstrating to everyone their will-to-autonomy (i.e., rebellion) against God.

The Divine Commission

"To bear the reproach of Christ by standing up for His truth appears at the present day to be an upopular thing. But if it is unpopular, it is a very blessed thing. We who name His Name should pray that He will raise up men who will call this generation back to His infallible and inerrant Word and to the Christ of Whom that Word speaks. And in this task we have the assurance and the comfort that the battle is the Lord's." Edward J. Young, Thy Word is Truth, 7.

"Those who continue to hold that the Bible is without mistake because it is God's inspired Word and that God cannot lie or contradict himself have a responsiblitity before God to take advantage of the second opportunity he has given us--to pick up the pieces all the way back to the 1930s. By the grace of God we must do better in order to stand in our generation with love, but with total clarity, for a Bible 'not partly true and partly false, but all true, the blessed, holy Word of God--this warm and vital type of Christianity.'" Francis Schaeffer, "God Gives His People a Second Opportunity" in The Foundation of Biblical Authority (ed. J. M. Boice; Zondervan, 1978), 19.

"Does this not say something terribly important as to what is at stake in the inerrancy issue? In crisis, there is no alternative to proclamation that 'makes no odds.' Under such conditions, anything less than total assurance in Christian proclamation is betrayal of Christ and sure defeat. But how can one possibly say, 'it is written,' without a Scripture that is entirely trustworthy? We need to become aware that all of life is really crisis in a sinful world where the battle between Christ and the powers of evil never ceases for a moment. What is at stake? Your effectiveness in that battle, and mine. Let us not tarnish and corrode our only effectual weapon--'the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God." John Warwick Montgomery, "Biblical Inerrancy: What is at Stake?" in God's Inerrant Word. (ed. J. W. Montgomery, Bethany,1974), 39-40.

"We affirm that a confession of the full authority, infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture is vital to a sound understanding of the whole of the Christian faith. We further affirm that such a confession should lead to increasing conformity to the image of Christ.
We deny that such a confession is necessary for salvation. However, we further deny that inerrancy can be rejected without grave consequences, both to the individual and to the Church." The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, Article, XIX.

If younger evangelicals grow up knowing that there is some implicit divine commission to uphold inerrancy, one that real Christians can't help but obey, it is no wonder that the evangelical ultimatum will come to mind as the only way to look at the matter.

Inerrantist Humanism

Nicholas Gier remarks: "As far as I am concerned, the claims of special revelation are just as human as the claims of general revelation, and these claims must be tested by the same human methods. To argue otherwise would simply be indulging in the question begging of the highest order.

This means that there is a hidden humanism in evangelical rationalism. When Lewis claims that Christian apologetics is an attempt to see how far we can go 'on their own steam,' and when other evangelicals tell with great confidence what God has said and what he intends, we are observing a Promethean self-assertion as great as anything in the history of secular humanism." (God, Reason, and the Evangelicals, p. 5)

There is a latent humanistic facet to inerrantism: a tremendous faith in human powers to determine what God has said and what he wants, and then go on to proclaim it. Even the most negative assessment of the human capacity such as that which claims that humans do not have "the moral capacity to handle truth rightly" (P. K. Helseth, "Christ-Centered, Bible-Based, and Second Rate?" WTJ 69 [2007]: 397) displays a fundamental humanistic trust in the inerrantist hermeneutical enterprise. This a very great irony that powerfully upsets the naive "what the Bible says, God says" understanding that younger evangelicals live and breathe in their churches and classrooms.

Nineteenth century innovation?

I have recently come across, "Don't You Believe in the Inerrancy of the Original Autographs or Have You Stopped Beating Your Wife Yet?" by Theodore Letis, (http://www.kuyper.org/main/publish/books_essays/article_67.shtml). The author suggests that the question, "Do you believe in the inerrancy of the autographs?" is a loaded question that presumes too much and goes on to argue two main points. First, Letis complains that the doctrine of inerrancy cannot possibly be the historic position of the church because the word "inerrancy" did not even come into existence until the nineteenth century. Second, he provides evidence that a preoccupation with autographs was Warfield's innovative attempt to dodge textual critical arguments that were being made by scholars who would denied verbal inspiration.

Although I am not an inerrantist, I cannot bring myself to agree with Letis' article. I have had occasion to think a little about the 19th century innovation thesis when Don Bloesch asked me my thoughts on the matter (in a letter). I think the thesis has some of it right, but it also has much of it wrong. Although the article by Letis sets out to articulate what's right about the thesis, it seems to me he widely misses the mark. Although Letis talks about inerrantists being illogical, his own argument contains a major flaw. For if there is no evidence for the word "inerrancy" before the nineteenth century, that does not mean that there is no evidence for the concept of inerrancy. Inerrancy is not tied to any word. There is a concept behind the word that any number of terms and phrases can connote. In any event, I think Craig Allert (A High View of Scripture?) has a better angle on inerrantist, begging-the-question questions. Allert responds to the query, "Do you have a high view of scripture?" by asking, "Why should inerrantists decide for everybody what a 'high' view of scripture is?"

I am not in a position to comment on Letis' point about Warfield's continuity with some of the Reformers with regard to focusing upon the inerrancy of the autographs. What I can say is that Warfield was not the first to argue for inerrancy (of the fundamentalist kind) with regard to the autographs. Ronald S. Satta's The Sacred Text: Biblical Authority in Nineteenth-Century America easily establishes that to my satisfaction.

What does "authoritative Bible" mean in a given historical context? That is the million dollar question. It will mean something (whether slightly or glaringly) different to every generation insofar as each generation will attempt answers (and attach meanings) to the question from within disparate cultural/ philosophical contexts and on the basis of disparate bodies of scientific knowledge. "Authoritative" is bound to mean one thing when the possibility of countervailing evidence to scriptural accounts is unthinkable and quite another when such evidence is present in overabundance.

Inerrancy's Spirit of Fear

The God of inerrancy has many young evangelicals scared to ask questions about the Bible. The God of inerrancy reigns over a kingdom whose rules come across loud and clear: Don't challenge what inerrantists say about the Bible or there's a chance on that final day God will actually say to you, 'Depart from me, I never knew you.' For what happens on the final day does not depend upon how well you live your life or how good of a person you have become through the process of sanctification. It's all about one thing: what you believe. Do you believe in God--that he's all-powerful, all-knowing, and as good as good comes? Do you believe he has given his people a Scripture that is all-powerful, all-knowing, and as good as good comes (in fact, it's God's Word)?


If you have doubts about Scripture, then you have doubts about God [and inerrantists will quickly begin having doubts about you!]. That is the inerrantist spirit and what a stifling effect it has on young evangelicals (especially students)! Unless, of course, for whatever reasons, one cannot help but keep asking critical questions and more seriously probing Scripture, pushing it to its limits. Then something awful happens. You realize that Scripture cannot hold the weight that it's supposed to hold. Scripture is not God, but rather more like a book--in fact, uncannily similar to many books of its time. You realize, 'Scripture is not all-powerful, Scripture is not all-knowing, Scripture is not as good as good can be.' But the thing is, who can you tell? To whom could you possibly say, 'I'm not so sure the Bible's inerrant' or 'I'm not finding inerrancy to be helpful any more.' Who has ears to hear this? Your pastor? Your denomination? Your seminary professors?!


Well, if you're like me, it wouldn't matter even if there was someone you could tell because you may initially be too scared to tell anyone, afraid even to face the fact yourself. But I have some advice if you are wont to listen. Start by telling someone who already knows; start by telling God. He already knows about Scripture. In fact, he knows about your doubts. If God strikes you down after you tell him, it won't be because you told him. He already knows about your doubts regarding Scripture; he's learning nothing new from your confession. Many students are scared to tell God that they doubt; some suffer silently as their doubts gain in strength and severity. If the God of inerrancy is fading, what kind of god is left?

This might be a good time to ask a Bible trivia question: Do you know what the most frequent command in the Bible is? It's 'Don't be afraid.'* Is inerrancy helping you obey this command?





* According to N. T. Wright, Following Jesus: Biblical Reflections on Discipleship. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 66.

Not sola inerrancy

After reading through some articles that recount 20th century attempts to purge schools and even entire denominations of non-inerrantists, it has become obvious to me that inerrancy alone cannot account for the degree of spiritual and psychological dysfunction that characterizes the cumulative set of incidents. In a book written back in the 80s (Daniel Sloat, The Dangers of Growing Up in a Christian Home), there is a personality rubric that delineates four main personality trajectories. The pertinent one for the present context is the one the author calls "high-D." This personality trajectory is characterized by the following tendencies (pp. 41-43):

-The person will tend to have a very high opinion of him/herself.

-The person will not tend to be able to stomach discussions that have to do with details.

-The person will tend to be impatient and want to "take action," making sure they are in charge.

-The person will tend to go on the offensive in order to maintain control of situations.

-The person will tend to want to change the way things presently are.

-The person will not likely be moved by others' existential pain and dissatisfaction.

-The person will likely be in a leadership position of some kind.

-The person will tend not to listen to lengthy explanations, preferring a direct answer.

Inerrancy contributes negatively to the spiritual formation of those who have hyper-D (really high D) personalities. Inerrancy will considerably magnify each of the traits listed above and intensify the hyper-D's greatest fear: being taken advantage of. The D-personalities who seem to lead evangelical institutions and congregations so capably have a deep-seated fear, according to Sloat: if they are not in charge, not only will things likely go wrong, but they themselves will somehow be taken advantage of. When this fear is interpreted in terms of evangelical spiritual warfare, the D-personality convinces himself that he must do everything in his power to purge his community of unbelief, lest spiritual enemies take advantage and finally get the better of him. Of course, this thought process is brought about naturally, in accord with the D-personality's emotional and psychological makeup. In fact, the thought process comes so naturally to a hyper-D, he may interpret his easily made decisions as God communicating his will in clear and uncertain terms--and this is an interpretation that others will have an incredibly hard time arguing against.

So it seems to me that it is not sola inerrancy that is killing evangelicalism, it is inerrancy-in-context, in this case, inerrancy in the context of high-D personalities. High-D's will do as they do, driven by their personalities, but the majority will often not be in agreement with their flagrant, self-serving actions. If high- [and especially hyper-] D's could somehow learn to stop and consider how their actions are effecting those around them (in this case, students ) evangelical Christianity would be much easier place to live.

Inerrantists like to purge

The inerrantist mindset is very unhealthy for students in institutional settings, especially students at seminaries. Two faculty members from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, for example, have been trying to figure out how biblical scholars who accept teams of authors for certain of the Pauline epistles (as suggested in Paul and First Century Letter Writing by E. Randolph Richards) can get along with the theologians who promulgate the standard evangelical accounts of inspiration and inerrancy. But this is a positive example, a situation where the biblical studies faculty member and the theological faculty member are friends, friends who think the other is wrong regarding scripture in the most fundamental way, but friends who can talk to each other and even give a joint public report about it.

Yet there are also very negative examples, frightening examples, if you ask me. One that comes immediately to mind is Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia. Pete Enns' book, Inspiration and Incarnation, seems to have really upset some people. I am no longer at Westminster, but it is not difficult to deduce the present situation via a combination of what is being discussed online, what profs from other schools have said to me in passing and the posting I read the other day on Westminster's site about how Steve Taylor is leaving.(http://www.wts.edu/stayinformed/view.html?id=50)

What's it all about? Well even Don Carson admits that Pete has not revealed anything new in his book: "Appearances to the contrary, it advances no new theory or grand hypothesis." All of Enns' Old Testament "problems" are well-known. Vitriolic responses to Enns' book are a symptom of something deeper, some unhealthy underlying spiritual disease--the authority of inerrancy internalized, authoritarianism run amok. For Enns does nothing questionable in his book, he simply compiles a good number of ANE parallels, seemingly paradoxical scriptures, and examples of NT uses of the OT in one convenient place--a number of other conservative evangelicals have done the same separately. Accordingly, the acerbic response, I think, stems not from the substance of Enns' book, but from its pathos. Carson picks up on the same thing when he brings up how Blocher, Schaeffer, or Longman (to name a few) discuss some of the very same problems that Enns touches upon. One can read these authors and find much of the same material treated candidly. The difference is "with Blocher and Schaeffer, one does not feel 'got at'..."

"Got at"--here's the sticking point. Evangelicalism has been privately wrestling with inerrancy for decades, but publicly, well, that's another matter. Publicly, inerrancy has been touted as the belief that distinguishes true Christianity from unbelief. I think that if young evangelicals are even slightly familiar with how 20th century struggles over inerrancy often panned out, they can easily discern for themselves what will happen shortly at Westminster, that is, if it is not happening there already.

An excerpt from Time Magazine, July 26, 1971:

"The jockeying began two years ago, when a grass-roots revolt before the 1969 convention brought conservative Classicist J.A.O. ("Jack") Preus into the presidency of the denomination. But moderates remained in command of the Missouri Synod's respected Concordia Theological Seminary in St. Louis, the largest Lutheran seminary in the U.S. Preus has since consolidated power with aggressive efficiency—moderates say with ruthlessness. Though a number of opponents stayed in untouchable jobs around him, he carefully nurtured grassroots support. The moderates' main complaint against their president stems from an investigation he launched last year at Concordia in response to charges that some seminary theologians were not hewing strictly to the doctrine of the Bible's "inerrancy."

The inerrancy doctrine is at the heart of the present strife. Preus and many other conservatives take the fundamentalist view, which holds that such biblical passages as the Adam and Eve account and even Jonah's journey inside the whale are historically true. For most moderates, however, inerrancy means rather that major doctrines, such as original sin, are divinely inspired truth, while specific stories like that of Adam and Eve or Jonah could be just illustrations of a larger truth.The fight is an old one in American Protestantism, but it has grown up anew in the Missouri Synod with Concordia's efforts to build a topflight Scripture faculty. When Preus' investigation team arrived on the Concordia campus, it was stacked with fundamentalists who see the more liberal position as heretical; a number of theologians feared a purge. At the convention, Preus saw to it that key committees were in the hands of allies. Then he opened the week by laying it on the line to the nearly 1,000 delegates in a dramatic, unflinching call for theological law and order. He asked that the convention require L.C.M.S. members to accept not only traditional Lutheran Confessions of Faith but also all statements on biblical doctrines passed by Synod conventions. The "absolutism" of the presidential wing, wrote the angriest of the opposition newspapers circulating on the convention floor, resembled nothing so much as "gang rape.""
(http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,877037-1,00.html)

(In this particular schismatic development, it is interesting to note that "there were no real liberals in the Missouri Synod." [http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=785])

Excerpt from a New York Times article from December 21, 1892:

"'It is given to every man to proclaim from the housetop anything he may feel moved to utter, if it has the least tinge of decency about it. Dr. Briggs has the liberty to do this on his own responsibility. But he may not use this liberty at the expense of the rights of others. The Presbyterian Church has an equal right to be left free to say to what doctrines she will give her testimony and to refuse her imprimatur for the promulgation of opinions which she considers subversive of fundamental truth. As much as Dr. Briggs, the Presbyterian Church is on trial to-day.

Scholarship has been brought into the case to influence your decision, and for that reason a few words must be said here in reference to it. It has been stated that Dr. Briggs knows more about the Bible than all his co-Presbyters taken together. And it has also been boldly said that the Presbyterian Church, in prosecuting him for heresy, takes a position in favor of a narrow and superficial treatment of Scripture. No doubt some believe these statements. But they believe what is not true. There are many scholars as great as Dr. Briggs. And our Church is in hearty accord with the best scholarship.

But the Presbyterian Church places faith above mere scholarship. It recognizes the truth that the one supreme and distinguishing characteristic of Christian people is that they are believers. They are an army of believers, called of God to fight the good fight, in which, not learning, but faith itself gives them strength and courage, since by it they lay hold of the arm of the Lord and make real the help of heaven for the conflict on earth. The power of the Church is measured by its faith in the truth and promise of God. And so it has ever been the supreme duty of the Church to guard against that falling away which comes through a desire for new things, and above all to see to it that there shall be faith on the earth at the coming of her Lord...

It is not denied that Dr. Briggs has made many orthodox statements in the works which he has put in evidence. And it is not for these that he has been accused, but for utterances in the inaugural which are believed to be heretical.'

At this afternoon's session it is probable that a resolution will be adopted to exclude everybody but members of the Presbytery entitled to vote from the sessions at which the voting shall be done." (http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9C00E7DA1F31E033A25752C2A9649D94639ED7CF&oref=slogin)

Lastly, an excerpt from an article in Christianity Today, February 3, 1984:

"As one of the five founders of the Evangelical Theological Society, with a heavy heart I officially request that Dr. Robert Gundry submit his resignation, unless he retracts his position on the historical trustworthiness of Matthew's Gospel."

Nicole's motion to request Gundry's resignation was the final stage in a controversy that has been developing ever since Gundry's earlier commentary on Matthew for the Expositor's Bible Commentary was rejected by its New Testament coeditors, Merrill C. Tenney and James M. Boice, despite years of revision. When his views became known, Gundry was asked to deliver a paper on Matthew's theology at a regional ETS meeting. A copy of that paper was sent to Harold Lindsell, conservative defender of biblical inerrancy, who raised the question of Gundry's ETS membership. At the urging of Richard Longenecker of Wycliffe College, Toronto, the ETS decided to take no action until the publication of Gundry's commentary.

In 1982, after publication of the commentary, the executive committee of the ETS under the leadership of Alan F. Johnson, professor of biblical studies at Wheaton College, reported that because Gundry affirmed the ETS doctrinal statement on inerrancy, no action was necessary. Applause followed, which seemed to some to end debate.

But Geisler, for example, was deeply upset by this action of the ETS executive board. Early in 1983 he circulated a letter requesting ETS action on Gundry's membership, and gathered some 59 signatures from faculty members at several theological seminaries. Louis Goldberg, professor of theology and Jewish studies at Moody Bible Institute and 1983 ETS president, responded to Geisler's petition by appointing an ad hoc committee to handle the matter...

The Saturday morning plenary business session that met to vote on the ad hoc committee's proposals was considerably better attended than any of the society's plenary or sectional sessions. Geisler had clearly done his homework carefully. The evening before, he circulated a document, "Why We Must Vote Now on Gundry's Membership, and Why We Must Vote No on Gundry's Membership." He hinted that if the ETS did not remove Gundry, a new "International Theological Society" would be formed to "take the doctrine of inerrancy seriously."
Every major step of the business meeting reflected the preparation of the Geisler forces. The three proposals of the ETS ad hoc committee were soundly defeated. George Knight III of Convenant Theological Seminary then promptly moved that "the ETS go on record as rejecting any position that states that Matthew or any other biblical writer materially altered and embellished historical tradition or departed from the actuality of events." Despite the efforts of Ward Gasque of Regent College to table Knight's motion, it passed 119 to 36, with many abstentions."
(http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/novemberweb-only/11-17-42.0.html?start=1)

Students are not helped when inerrantists purge. After all, students not only want to learn what inerrancy means, they want to know what it means to be an inerrantist. They learn this not so much from reading inerrantist theology and attending inerrantists' classes, but by watching what inerrantists do in response to the evangelicals who disagree with them.

I forgot about presuppositionalism

(As I look over what I have written I have to say that no matter how carefully I write about presuppositionalism, there will be presuppositionalist readers who will surmise that I don't truly understand their position. My experience with presuppositionalists has been as follows: most of the time, either presuppositionalists will say that I am an unbeliever or they will say that it is obvious that I do not understand what they're trying to get at, because if I did, I would duly agree with them. Come to think of it, this all sounds very Barthian.)

In my last post I mentioned WTS without mentioning presuppositionalism. Presuppositionalism is a very big part of the Westminster tradition and unfortunately has the notorious distinction of impenetrably shielding Westminsterites from a critical examination of inerrancy. Inerrancy is one of the sacrosanct doctrines that is epistemologically presupposed at WTS (along with a good dose of the Dutch Calvinist tradition). That being the case, it becomes nigh-impossible to genuinely and critically engage a presuppositionalist about inerrancy. My understanding of presuppositionalism is that certain tenets of the faith are presupposed when engaging in apologetics and not practically in need of defense, for defenses will fall on deaf ears since sin is obscuring reason's ability to see the truth. [Christians also have deaf ears (to various degrees, the Reformed having better "hearing"). This belief explains Westminster's idiosyncratic view that every discipline is ultimately theology. It may also help account for the non-presuppositionalist charge that Westminster is not really interested in doing philosophy, for example, they only do theology.]

I talked with many of the PhD apologetics students during my time at WTS. (I audited a PhD level course, "Philosophy Useful for Theology" or something like that. I dropped the course after the professor began repeatedly asking me, "Do you believe in God? Do you believe in God?" when I complained that the class was primarily a "Let's compare famous philosophers with Cornelius Van Til" class. I also insisted to the professor that Van Til's apologetic was a cosmological argument in disguise and not transcendental.) I was told time and again that I am an unbeliever because of my willingness to subject inerrancy to an unhealthy dose of critical scrutiny. Inerrancy is one of the main tenets of the Christian faith and it can only properly be accepted by (Reformed) believers. It is a faith position that is presupposed by believers and can only properly be accepted by the (truly) Reformed. If the position is not presupposed by a believer then the believer in question is acting epistemologically like an unbeliever. It is ok to give arguments for inerrancy, but sin will prevent people from appreciating their true cogency. Calvin, for example, tried to argue for an authoritative scripture. But his types of arguments do not clinch the matter and the inerrancy of scripture is something one can (and must?) be certain of. To argue for the inerrancy of scripture, then, can never really accomplish what Christians need; presupposing inerrancy, therefore, is the way to go. What the Bible says of itself is true, we simply presuppose it. (In class at WTS, we were exposed to a deductive argument for inerrancy, but, as I try to argue in my book, these arguments do not at all help us understand what inerrancy is supposed to mean--a full-blown inductive study of scripture and the historical and cultural matrix within which it was composed and compiled is necessary for that. Not only that but our cultural contributions to theological formulations must also be taken into account. These kinds of investigations seem to me to necessitate a major revision of the doctrine.)

Thus inerrancy is established as being methodologically beyond critical discussion precisely because it is one of the things that is presupposed, which implies tacitly to the presuppositionalist that inerrancy has already been figured out; nothing radically new can be said of it. It can hardly pay to revisit it, especially with an eye toward radical criticism (say, by examining inner-biblical exegesis and musing whether present construals of inerrancy are way off the mark.) [And this can be especially unsettling because now professors whose job it is to actually look at and deal with the Bible's "problems" will have little reason not to examine them with incredible candor, since the problems in scripture should never theoretically pose a threat to inerrancy (because the doctrine is presupposed and not dependent upon evidence).] In fact, the "don't touch inerrancy" mindset becomes so entrenched in presuppositionalism and viewed as such a sacred postulate that I am persuaded only a momentous life circumstance (which could be something as minor as studying at an institution that is not presuppositionalist in its apologetic attitude) can existentially work to bring about a presuppositionalist change of mind. Consider Daniel Wallace's personal experience:

"Many today are uncomfortable with an inductive approach to bibliology. I have to wonder if perhaps one of the reasons they are is that it is simply easier to hold to a naïve fideism than it is to examine the data. I have to wonder if perhaps the presuppositionalism of Reformed epistemology has run amok in some circles. Yes, I am a presuppositionalist in my core beliefs, but I believe that there is a place for evidence. When I was a full-blown presuppositionalist years ago, I slipped into a kind of doctrinal arrogance. I didn’t distinguish which truths were grounds for others. This caused a certain smugness on my part, and allowed me the luxury of viewing all doctrines as created equal. But I learned a rather valuable lesson while in the master’s program. I came home to California for a Christmas vacation early on in the program. And I had lunch with my uncle, David Wallace. He was the first graduate from Fuller Seminary to earn a Ph.D. He earned it at Edinburgh University, under Matthew Black. But he also logged some time in various places in Europe—studying with Baumgartner, Barth, and others. He was not pleased with my choice to attend Dallas Seminary; I was clueless about what he really believed. During the lunch, I asked him what he thought about inerrancy. His response startled me, and changed my perspective for all time. He essentially said that he didn’t hold to the doctrine (though he said so much more colorfully than that!). I thought to myself, “Oh no! My uncle is going to hell!” I felt compelled to ask him what he thought about the bodily resurrection of Christ, fearing what I would hear next. After all, without inerrancy, we really can’t know anything about Christ, right? To my surprise, David said, “If Christ is not raised from the dead, then we’re all dead in our sins.” He was certain about the resurrection of Christ. But how could he be without a bibliological presupposition to back it up? I cannot tell you how great the existential crisis was for me at that moment. Up until this time, I had believed that inerrancy was an essential belief of the Christian faith, one that was indispensable to salvation. When David affirmed the central credo of salvation, I could not deny his spiritual status. I came to the sudden realization that one could be saved without embracing inerrancy." (http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=4200#P28_18261) [NB: Wallace maintains his belief in inerrancy; I am only drawing attention to his experience regarding presuppositionalism.]

Opponents of presuppositionalist apologetics almost always point to John Warwick Montgomery's classic refutation of presuppositionalism in Jerusalem and Athens: Critical Discussions on the Philosophy and Apologetics of Cornelius Van Til, when they engage presuppositionalists, but that essay typically does not impress, for presuppositionalists insist that Montgomery does not truly understand presuppositionalism and that his critique accordingly misses the mark. Perhaps John Mark Reynolds has a better chance; his parody of presuppositionalism is the best I 've een. (http://www.scriptoriumdaily.com/2007/12/20/santa-lives-a-presuppositional-defense-of-the-existence-of-santa-with-a-fisking-of-clement-moore/)

[NB--Craig does not make a connection between WTS and anti-scholarship--I'm the one who did that.]

Inerrancy's will to power

I was excited to talk to William Lane Craig recently but he was not happy when I related to him my struggles in the faith and how I think that it all began with my doubts regarding inerrancy. He asked whether my experience had been similar to that of Bart Ehrman. I said that it was, and he inquired further into what precisely I thought was causing the problem. I told him that I think it's a clash of apologetic cultures that played a big part: I had first formally learned apologetics in a course with Gary Habermas (and informally from J. P. Moreland's Scaling the Secular City) and then went off to Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia to complete a degree. Westminster, to my astonishment (I knew nothing of presuppositionalism), was quite critical of the arguments I had learned and internalized in support of my faith. Some teachers there (and not a few students) were all-too-eager to point out that an argument for the resurrection does not imply the Christian faith. They seemed almost too happy to explain that the traditional arguments for God's existence are not all that compelling. In fact, my understanding after my first semester at WTS was clear: when Christian thinking is practiced by prominent Christian thinkers (not only by contemporary philosophers, but most intellectuals throughout Christian history) "a better recipe for error could hardly be imagined." (Lane Tipton and K. Scott Oliphint, "Introduction," in Revelation and Reason: New Essays in Reformed Apologetics. [Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 2007], 3, n. 2.) I told Bill Craig that his (Craig's) apologetic did not seem too compatible with Westminster's "Reformed" apologetic and that that had been existentially jarring for me, especially in the area of bibliology. He said that the conflict was no big deal for him for the simple reason that he is not "Reformed."

Not "Reformed." Now there's a thought. Tipton and Oliphint, for example, can hardly believe that Craig would counsel his readers as follows: "Some readers of my study of divine omniscience, The Only Wise God, expressed surprise at my remark that someone desiring to learn more about God's attribute of omniscience would be better advised to read the works of Christian philosophers than of Christian theologians. Not only was that remark true, but the same holds for divine eternity." (This is a quote from Craig's Time and Eternity, p. 11, that appears in the Tipton and Oliphint book on page 2.) Craig has some pretty good reasons for saying this: "Today's theologians generally have next to no training in philosophy and science and so are ill-equipped to address in a substantive way the complex issues raised..." (p. 11) What does this have to do with Craig not being "Reformed"? Well, Tipton and Oliphint interpret "not Reformed" in terms of Craig's holding reason as principium; but Craig knows all about reason as principium (see the discussion in his Hard Questions, Real Answers, for example.) and does not accept considerations regarding reason as principium as an excuse for culturally forbidding the pursuit of rigorous scholarship.

Now I can't help but think that on an existential level I would not be wrong to interpret "not Reformed" in terms of "not being subject to Westminster's inerrantist will to power." In other words, I think Craig finds it so easy to argue against Westminster's anti-scholarship stance (Craig talks about the eclipse of scholarship in conservative churches) because he is not subject to the authority of Westminster's theology professors. That seems to be what "not being Reformed" practically boils down to. The only ones who can freely argue against Westminster's theology professors are those who are not subject to their professional and communal authority, i.e, those who are ecclesiastically immune from them. Those who are under their authority have, of course, ample liberty to say something critical, but they are fated to suffer social and institutional consequences. So professors leave and students graduate with very bad tastes in their mouths (and sometimes they just up and withdraw) as the powerful consolidate their power by polarizing the community in terms of individuals' purported views of scripture. Now this is a fearful development, one brought into existence by, among other things, an authoritarian, inerrantist mindset.

Yet I feel like that is all I've ever known when it comes to religion. People's questions discouraged, their doubts dismissed. And if I, God forbid, should prove not satisfied with the church communities' social discouragement and institutional dismissal of questions and doubts, then it was often the case tacitly and sometimes forthrightly and explicitly that I was accused of harboring unconfessed sin or "thinking as an unbeliever." During my twenties, for example--a crucial time of spiritual formation--I came to a mutual agreement with a pastor of a KJV-only, fundamentalist church that I should leave the church--but here's the rub, I could not tell my students that I was leaving (much less why), kids my wife and I had been teaching for just over two years! And most recently, we've been attending this other church--going on two years--and the youth pastor and his wife mysteriously stopped attending. A few months later a new youth leader was introduced, no explanation as to what happened to the old one--turns out he didn't want to leave, he was simply dismissed when the people who hold the real power in the church decided to let him go during a temporary power vacuum (no head rector) that had occurred this summer. My wife and I just saw this exiled youth leader on New Years Eve and there was a social awkwardness to the effect that we had to carry on our conversations as if nothing had ever happened. I'm sure this kind of stuff happens all around evangelicalism. I wonder how it might be related to the authoritarianism that tends to accompany inerrancy.