Historical Theology
Southwestern Journal of Theology
Volume 57, No. 2 – Spring 2015
Managing Editor: Terry L. Wilder
Edited by J. Merrick and Stephen M. Garrett. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2013. 288 pages. Paperback, $19.99.
Reading this book will be interesting for those who are already familiar with the relevant theological issues related to the question of inerrancy. The book is replete with alert interactions and amusing subtle quips.
The editors correctly assert that a critical issue in the discussion of inerrancy is the relationship between form and content (316). This is certainly born out in the interactions in the book. It is also revealed in the book itself. The editors framed the conversation through the organization of the book and what they asked the author’s to address. The book follows a “perspectival arrangement.” Following this structure, the editor’s weren’t only concerned with different views of inerrancy, but how various perspectives of the past, present, and international contexts may have affected the author’s understanding of inerrancy. The editors believed that this approach emphasized “converging and diverging” viewpoints (312).
It will be left to the reader to determine the effectiveness of the arrangement and its helpfulness for this discussion. Though, despite the claim that this approach would allow the authors “to express their position without trying to fit within some prescribed label” (312), it does seem that the decision on the arrangement of the book was made after the articles were completed (24), indicating that the author’s may not have fully understood the “perspectival arrangement” as they were composing their particular chapters.
The editors further asked the author’s to “develop their position in light of
the following: (1) God and his relationship to his creatures, (2) the doctrine of inspiration, (3) the nature of Scripture, and (4) the nature of truth. [They] also asked authors to consider the [Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy’s (CSBI)] historical contribution when developing their position” (317). A final task assigned to the authors was the examination of three texts which were considered “potential challenge[s] to inerrancy” (22), based on their perspective. Contributors were to examine the historical accuracy of Joshua 6, particularly in light of archeological evidence of the events described; the two accounts by Luke of Paul’s conversion in Acts 9:7 and 22:9, especially focusing on the nuances of the details of what the Apostle’s traveling companions “heard” and “saw;” and the question of the complete destruction of the Canaanites in Deuteronomy 20 in light of Jesus’ instructions to love one’s enemies in Matthew 5.
The introduction of the book outlines some of the history of the discussion of inerrancy, framing the discussion around the “Gundry-Geisler controversy.” It outlines the instructions given to the authors and briefly explains the perspectival approach of the editors (though this is much more fully explained in the concluding chapter by the editors). Missing in the introduction is a summary of the various positions by the author’s on inerrancy. Such a discussion would have added clarity to the book. As such, anyone unfamiliar with the positions held by the contributor’s will begin the book playing “catch-up” as the chapters begin.
The five contributors to the book all address the issues effectively, though it is not entirely clear that they represent five distinct views on inerrancy. Al Mohler presents what the editors describe as the “classic doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy,” maintaining (with the CSBI) that Scripture is of “infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches” (36). He consistently maintains that inerrancy is critical to evangelicalism. He supports his position using Scripture, tradition, and the function of the Bible. His view is criticized as simplistic (59), unyielding (69), failing to take into consideration the genre of the text (74), and too closely tied to the CSBI (80-81).
Peter Enns, in his article, presents the most serious attack against biblical inerrancy. Enns spends much of his article taking issue with the CSBI. It is not entirely clear what Enns’ position is on inerrancy, as Vanhoozer points out (135). Rather, Enns contends that the term inerrancy has “run its course” (115), and instead of presenting a position on inerrancy, rather argues what inerrancy does, which he suggests leads one towards “schizophrenia” (114). In the strongest critique of Enns, Mohler states that Enns has presented a “very consistent and clear rejection of any claim that the Bible is inerrant” (117), and “has moved far outside of any recognizable evangelical model of biblical inspiration or authority” (123).
Michael Bird’s view is that “the American inerrancy tradition is not an essential facet of the faith” (146). He contends, for example, in the story of Jesus’ healing of the blind man near Jericho that “the details are incidental and are open to rearrangement by the storyteller” (149). One might wonder if he would allow that same looseness of detail with the resurrection. A legitimate question that one might have with Bird’s position is his assumption that because those outside of the “American inerrancy tradition” are not familiar with the word, “inerrancy” that it must follow that they do not believe that the Bible is inerrant. Vanhoozer makes a similar point in his response (190).
Vanhoozer presents a clear view in support of biblical inerrancy. Though the ways that Vanhoozer and Mohler handle the specific texts in question are different, his view, as Enns proposes, seems very similar to that presented by Mohler (243). The strongest point of clarification Vanhoozer makes as he describes “well-versed inerrancy” is his insistence on the accurate understanding of the genre of the specific biblical text, a point on which Mohler would seem to agree (cf. 240). If readers are not familiar with a previous exchange between Vanhoozer and John R. Franke, they will feel left out of the conversation reading Franke’s response to Vanhoozer’s article. Most of his response is not related to issues Vanhoozer presented in his article, but is rather a continuation of a previous exchange the two of them had in another forum and functions here as an “and another thing” that is only mildly related to the topic and article at hand.
The final view presented in the book is by John R. Franke. Rather than defend inerrancy, Franke, instead attempts to redefine it. He purports that inerrancy “is a technical theological term that serves to preserve the dynamic plurality contained in the texts of Scripture” (276), which, he suggests “frustrates attempts to establish a single universal theology” (278). Franke views the truth presented in Scripture “not in absolute terms but rather in terms of temporal witness in the midst of particular circumstances [which will] produce an open and flexible theology” (279). His handling of the passages assigned for each writer to address reveal his position that the details of the text itself don’t matter so much as the message that the text intends to communicate (cf. 280ff). He concludes that “the ultimate truths and inerrancy of the Bible are finally contained not in the particular narratives and teachings of individual texts. . . . [and that] even our allegiance to the Bible can draw us away from God’s intentions when we read it in a static and absolutist fashion” (287). The reader is left with the feeling that one should not worry so much about what the Bible says, but rather just believe in God. Though, one might legitimately counter, if his Word is not reliable, how can we know that our understanding of God can be?
Overall, this volume raises some very relevant questions for any serious Bible student to consider, such as: What is the nature of truth? What is the relationship between the various genres of Scripture and the fact that God speaks? How does the affirmation of inerrancy affect the historical accuracy of the events described in the Bible? Where are the appropriate lines in the discussion between Scripture and science? Or, to say it another way, if Scripture and science seem to contradict, to which does one default? In the end, the editors concede that the task assigned to the contributors “may in fact have been too robust to address in the limited space of this edited volume” (323). But, at a minimum, the book raises some pertinent issues and continues the conversation.
