Journeeman.

Thinking through a lifetime of loving the sacred text.

My Journey with Biblical Inerrancy: A Personal Reflection

Introduction:

Many years ago, I firmly believed the earth was only 6,000, maybe 10,000 years old. This wasn’t based on scientific evidence, but on my conviction that the Bible was inerrant. I read how a scholar had calculated the time span back from Jesus. The scholar traced the family tree all the way to Adam and Eve. He arrived at that figure. Along with this were the echo chambers that surrounded me in the church life I lived within, and the ‘scientific’ material supplied too me. Of course, this clashed dramatically with the scientific consensus, which pointed to a much, much older Earth. For a long time, I prioritised my biblical understanding over scientific findings. But eventually, it became clear that something was amiss in my approach to Scripture. As I began to understand genre, historical context, and other interpretive tools, I realised that part of the problem lay in what I was demanding of the Bible. Were my expectations aligned with what the Bible was actually intended to deliver? That question became the catalyst for a journey that continues to shape my faith today.

Of course, modifying my view of biblical inerrancy, and therefore of geographical time, has not come without its challenges. I’ve lost friendships and seen allegiances shift, simply because I dared to question long-held beliefs. Navigating issues of biblical interpretation is rarely neutral; whatever position you take, it will inevitably be problematic for someone, somewhere. Ultimately, the choices you make must be your own, driven by your own agency, and you must be prepared to face the consequences, both positive and negative.

The question of biblical inerrancy isn’t just an abstract theological debate for me; it’s deeply personal. There are two primary reasons why I’m choosing to explore this topic. First, it’s a question that has surfaced in my own circles, and I feel compelled to offer my perspective. But more importantly, it’s because the way I now engage with the Bible – freed from the constraints of literalism and the almost legalistic mindset that can sometimes characterise fundamentalist Christianity – has allowed me to experience a greater depth and breadth of biblical understanding. I can now approach the scriptures in a more dynamic and transformative way, while still holding to the sacredness of the Word and its inerrant purpose of the Bible being the message: Jesus Christ, the perfect Word.

Deconstructing the Question:

• “Believe”: 

The word ‘believe’ is deceptively simple, yet it carries a multitude of meanings and nuances. When we ask, ‘Do Christians have to believe in biblical inerrancy?’ we need to unpack what we mean by ‘believe’ and what we mean by “inerrancy”. In my early days, my understanding of “inerrancy” aligned with the traditional fundamentalist definition: the belief that the Bible, in its original manuscripts, was free from any errors whatsoever. It was seen as a perfect, consistent, and timeless source of truth, divinely preserved through the power of the Holy Spirit. Any perceived errors or inconsistencies were attributed to the fallibility of translators and the challenges of moving from the original languages to modern versions. This perspective emphasised the perfection of the original text and the potential for human error to creep in during the translation process.

However, it’s important to note that holding a high view of the Bible does not necessarily require a belief in its inerrancy. One can deeply value and respect the scriptures, recognising their spiritual authority and transformative power, without insisting on their absolute literal accuracy in every detail. The sacredness of the Bible is not dependent on its inerrancy. Rather, the focus should be on the one the Bible points to: Jesus Christ, the incarnate Word. It is belief in the incarnation of Jesus Christ that is the foundation of Christian faith, not a belief in the inerrancy of scripture.

• “Christians”: 

Perhaps the most challenging word in our question is ‘Christians.’ Christianity is not a monolithic entity; it encompasses a vast spectrum of denominations, traditions, and individual beliefs. From Catholics to Protestants, Pentecostals to Orthodox Christians, and countless independent churches and fellowships, the Christian landscape is incredibly diverse. For example, the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, one of the oldest Christian traditions, includes additional books in its New Testament canon, such as Enoch and Jubilees, demonstrating that even within Christianity, there can be variations in what is considered sacred text. Within each of these groups, there is also a wide range of theological perspectives and interpretations of scripture. Therefore, it’s impossible to make a blanket statement about what ‘Christians’ as a whole believe about biblical inerrancy. Some Christians hold firmly to the traditional fundamentalist view, while others embrace a more nuanced or even sceptical perspective. To speak of ‘Christians’ as a single, unified group is to ignore the rich tapestry of faith and practice that makes up the Christian world.

Unfortunately, there is a tendency within some Christian circles to quickly dismiss or label those with differing beliefs as ‘cults’ or ‘non-Christian.’ This ‘cancel culture’ mentality often stems from confusing personal or denominational identity with the core allegiance to Jesus Christ. It risks prioritising secondary or tertiary issues over the fundamental unity of faith, and can lead to a form of tribalism that undermines the broader Christian witness.

• “Biblical Inerrancy”:

To understand the concept of biblical inerrancy, particularly from a conservative or fundamentalist perspective, it’s essential to delve into four key concepts: verbal inspiration, plenary inspiration, inerrancy, and original autographs. These terms represent the core tenets of this view of scripture. Let’s briefly define each of them:

• Verbal Inspiration: This is the belief that the Holy Spirit guided the human authors of the Bible, dictating the exact words they wrote in the original text. In this view, the authors’ own agency was essentially superseded by God’s direct control over the writing process.
• Plenary Inspiration: This refers to the belief that the entirety of scripture is equally inspired by God, applying to every part of the original writings. In other words, no part of the Bible is considered to be more or less inspired than any other part.
• Inerrancy: This is the belief that everything God gives is perfect and good, without error or fault in all its affirmations. Proponents of inerrancy believe that the Bible, in its original form, is free from any errors of any kind, whether historical, scientific, or theological.
• Original Autographs: This qualification states that inerrancy applies only to the original written texts (the “autographs”) as given by the original authors. It acknowledges that errors may have crept into later copies or translations due to human fallibility.

While the concepts of verbal inspiration, plenary inspiration, inerrancy, and original autographs form the foundation of a conservative view of biblical inerrancy, there are several implications that cause me personal concern. These are not the only reasons for my reservations, but they are significant:

• The Agency Issue: The idea that God completely overrides the agency of the human authors raises questions about the nature of their contribution to scripture. It seems to suggest that they were mere automatons, rather than active participants in the writing process.
• God and Man Working Together: Throughout scripture, we see a pattern of God working in partnership with humanity. This suggests that scripture is a product of both divine and human elements, and that the human authors brought their own perspectives and experiences to the text.
• Cultural Context: The human authors of scripture were undoubtedly influenced by their cultural context, and their writings reflect those cultural understandings. This raises questions about the applicability of certain biblical passages to contemporary contexts, and whether we should interpret them literally or consider their historical and cultural background.

Furthermore, I grapple with the philosophical implications of God communicating with humanity through language. Even at the moment of divine communication, there is a necessary ‘stepping down’ – a simplification and reduction of the divine message to make it comprehensible to human minds. This is akin to how we simplify our language when speaking to children, sacrificing depth and nuance for the sake of understanding. As Heidegger suggests, language reflects being, and any reduction in language also reflects a reduction in being. Therefore, to insist on a literal, inerrant interpretation of scripture is to ignore the inherent limitations and sacrifices involved in translating divine truth into human language.

Biblical Inerrancy vs. High Christology:

While a high view of Christology is essential, we must also be cautious about elevating the Bible to a status that rivals or overshadows the unique role of Jesus Christ as the incarnate Word of God. It’s not an ‘either/or’ choice between the Bible and Christ, but rather a matter of recognising their proper relationship. The Bible, like the church and even creation itself, serves as a signpost pointing towards Christ. The purpose of reading the Bible is not to arrive at the Bible itself, but to arrive at a deeper understanding and relationship with Christ. The Bible is a witness to Christ, a pointer towards Christ, not a competitor. It has a symbiotic relationship to Christ, but not of equal standing – the Bible is the signpost, and Christ is the destination.

Beyond Inerrancy: A Christocentric View of Biblical Inspiration

The Church Fathers and modern theologians represent a broad spectrum of views on biblical inspiration, ranging from strict literalism to the view of the Bible as a purely human document.

I hold to a more nuanced position: The Bible is inspired, but this doesn’t require a rigid interpretation of biblical inerrancy. Rather, the Bible is ‘perfect’ in fulfilling its task – to be a signpost pointing towards the incarnation of Jesus Christ. The true meaning of scripture is not self-referential, but lies in its direction, pointing us to God and to the knowledge of Jesus Christ as the true Logos.

Furthermore, the Old Testament captures the human story, with its imperfections, traditions, and what some scholars, like Peter Enns, N.T. Wright, and John Walton, call ‘mytho-historical’ elements. These elements reflect the human experience of encountering God in mystery and, at times, uncertainty, and they reveal interpretations of the divine within human stories and narratives.

Therefore, leaving behind the need for inerrancy, we can discuss the faithfulness of the Bible in achieving the goal that God set for it: the incorporation of the human and the divine in a relationship pointing towards the incarnation. Here, faithfulness is defined as being consistent with what one claims to be, and holding to a position that is cohesive with those claims. If the Bible remains inspired, then it is faithful in achieving its goal simply because it is inspired by the One who knows what needs to be said to get it to a place where it refers consistently and cohesively to where it points.

Is the Bible absolutely faithful in achieving the goal of being a witness to the Logos? Absolutely. All we need is for the scriptures to have that divine witness and to be faithful in achieving its goal. It doesn’t require inerrancy; it requires faithfulness in achieving its witness towards Jesus Christ. The human element – culture, language, struggles, stories – is relational, as it is with any relationship. The interplay of the divine and the human will always involve the fallenness, brokenness, and struggle of understanding the divine. This is not an inconsistency, but rather an evidence of what our life is like in faith: a constant leading towards, but with a fallenness within.