I cannot think of any major doctrine within Christianity where there is such a tendency and desire to substantially and materially re-define the doctrine, rather than just denying it, as there is with the doctrine of biblical inerrancy.
Normally, if there is a doctrine that is defined by a belief you don't hold, you would just say that you don't accept that doctrine. No big deal. I deny doctrines all the time. Everyone does.
But I have noticed a trend, primarily among lay people who are nonetheless theologically learned, to want to fundamentally change what inerrancy means and embrace that version which is a fundamentally different doctrine.
First Things First
If you aren't familiar with the term "biblical inerrancy" (usually just called “inerrancy”), it is basically just the belief that each book of the Bible, when properly understood, in its original language as first written by its author, does not assert anything to be objectively true that is objectively false.
Some may phrase it differently, but the point is that the Bible doesn't teach anything to be true that is false. It doesn’t teach anything in error.
This view is common, though not universal, throughout the broad umbrella of Christianity. It usually stems from the belief that the books of the Bible, the holy scriptures, are given to mankind by God in such a direct and complete way that every word in scripture is at least approved of and signed off on by God. Anything you read, despite having come from the hand of a human author, is therefore the word of God. And since God knows everything and cannot lie, it follows that anything He says - including the Bible - is true.
This does not mean that everything is woodenly literal, or that there are no round numbers or idioms of the time or the like. But it does mean that when it says Steve the Hittite dug a well, it means that Steve the Hittite really dug a well. What if "dig a well" was a commonly-known idiom or figure of speech at the time? No problem; whatever "dug a well" meant, Steve the Hittite still really did it. It was not just a legend that the author incorrectly thought happened in real life.
Although there sometimes are gray areas about whether this or that idea is consistent with inerrancy, it is generally pretty straightforward.
Re-Defining Inerrancy
Or at least it was straightforward. Typically, people either accept the doctrine or they do not. They either believe that the Bible teaches nothing in error, or they think it does (even if only on small, side matters). From there, they might discuss why they believe what they believe and defend their view.
Now, however, the whole approach to inerrancy has been changing.
It is no longer a term and idea put forth by humans in order to express a specific belief that many serious, practicing Christians believe applies to the Bible (although some do not).
Instead, it is as if the term "inerrancy" simply means however true the teachings of the Bible are, and so we must figure out what is true of the Bible therefore determine what inerrancy is. To say that the Bible is inerrant is not to say that the Bible corresponds to a specific idea (i.e. inerrancy as defined outside of the Bible). Rather, the Bible is inerrant just by existing.
If the Bible never teaches anything to be true that is false, it is inerrant. If it is true in everything it says specifically about God's nature but also affirms things that are objectively false (e.g. people with mental illness or epilepsy were mistakenly said to be possessed by non-existent demons), it is inerrant. Heck, if everything except the words of Jesus in the Gospels are just manmade attempts at knowing God's will, the Bible could still be called "inerrant” since the things the Bible say still are what they say.
How This Plays Out In Practice
One common re-definition is to say that inerrancy just says that the Bible is always accurate in certain forms of teaching, but not all. Perhaps what it says about God specifically is always true. Or maybe its moral teachings are always true.
This leaves room for beliefs that the Bible teaches objectively false things about science, or contradicts itself at times, while still being “inerrant.” Many who take this attitude believe that people of the time all believed that the earth was a flat disc under a hard dome, and that the Bible specifically teaches this. However, the Bible is still inerrant because – and this may be the most cliché statement in all of biblical scholarship – the Bible is not a science textbook.
Therefore, what the Bible teaches about God and His love for mankind or the like is true, even if other teachings reflect and affirm the false beliefs of people at the time.
There can be any number of ways that this plays out, but it is something along these lines. It is conceded that (in the view of these expositors) the Bible affirms and asserts objectively false ideas, but it is true in what it teaches about certain things, so it is inerrant because inerrancy just means that it is right in its teachings on those certain things that it teaches on without error.
Problems With This Approach to Inerrancy
It is not an overstatement to say that such an approach to inerrancy turns the whole thing on its head and makes the very idea of inerrancy pointless.
I understand that over time, words can change meaning due to popular usage. The word “gay” used to just mean happy, a rhinoceros used to be called a “unicorn,” etc. But that doesn't mean that arbitrarily changing the definition of commonly understood words is in any way right or helpful to anyone. This especially true of terms of art, where the whole point is to wrap up all the points of an idea into one single word for the sake of ease and efficiency.
The whole point of the term “inerrancy” is to distinguish between beliefs that allow the Bible to teach error and the belief that it does not teach anything in error. If it is not going to mean anything like that anymore, than what purpose does the term and idea even serve?
We Don't Treat Other Terms and Doctrines That Way
And I just don't understand why this is a thing. We don't treat other doctrines that way.
For example, core to the doctrine of Calvinism is the belief in double predestination (i.e. the idea that God ultimately predestines every person to be saved or not). Every person is so lost in sin that only if God choses to directly intervene in their hearts would they ever chose Jesus and salvation. If someone doesn't have that belief about predestination (and many Christians don’t), they wouldn't say that they still count as Calvinists. They would not argue that Calvinism really means something much broader, like the idea that no one could be saved if not for God providing salvation (which is a defining belief of all Christians). They would not say that they now believe in Calvinism, having now re-defined it. They would just note that Calvinism teaches what it teaches, and they do not believe Calvinism to be correct.
Another major distinction between different sects within Christendom is credobaptism (the belief that only people who profess faith should be baptized) and paedobaptists (babies should be baptized too). You don't see people who believe that babies should be baptized saying that they are actually "credobaptists" because they think God credits babies of Christian parents as being believers or some nonsense like that. Someone who baptizes babies is a paedobaptist. It’s pretty straightforward.
The whole point of terms of art is to distinguish between different ideas. If you allow credobaptists to baptize babies, or allow people who deny double predestination to call themselves Calvinists, you might as well say that a square can be round or that a circle can have corners – or that the Bible can be inerrant and also teach objective falsehoods.
Why Is This Going On?
I can only venture a guess as to why this trend is occurring. My guess is, it differs by individual. There certainly could be incentive for some to be able to identify as inerrantists, since many churches and seminaries specifically affirm the doctrine and expect members/pastors/teachers to do so as well.
Of course, even if there is a personal incentive to be able to say that you hold to inerrancy, why would anyone make a sincere and honest case that they hold to inerrancy when their beliefs unambiguously contradict the idea? After all, statements of faith and the like care about what a person actually believes, not what words they use to describe their beliefs.
I have no doubt that one could take a deep dive into how this attitude may be nurtured by aspects of post-modernism, how it connects to western society's changing views on sexual morality, transgender ideology and gender fluidity, and much more. Of course, if one went that route, then that would likely turn into a full book or more.
Therefore, as far as that goes, I will just say that there seems to be something of a mix of postmodernism and a tendency within discussions of religion to abandon the normal rules of reason and logic. That isn’t to say that religion requires one to deny such things. On the contrary, in an age where emotions and subjective experience overshadows reason and truth throughout the secular world, being grounded in the belief of a true and living God gives us all the more reason to embrace logic and reason since we know that reality is not dependent on our own feelings and experiences. God has always existed and always will, regardless of what we say, think or do.
However, in religious discussions – perhaps in part due to current, post-modern ideas – I have noticed a tendency to not expect things to be logically coherent. One extreme example of this was a Christian who said that we should not expect the Old Testament to conform to the law of non-contradiction since that was a pagan, Greek idea.
The law of non-contradiction is simply the observation at the core of all reality that something cannot be both true and false in the same way at the same time. Greeks were the first to formally lay out non-contradiction as a law of logic, but every person of sound mind, even children, all understand and accept the content of the law of non-contradiction. Every argument anyone ever makes for or against anything assumes the law of non-contradiction.
To deny the law of non-contradiction is, therefore, ridiculous. If anyone does deny the law of non-contradiction, just tell them that they do not deny the law of contradiction and that they just knowingly argued that it was true. On what grounds can they say that you are wrong?
Either the Old Testament is correct in everything it teaches, or some things are not correct. Either way, the writers were bound by the same law of non-contradiction as everyone else, even if they didn’t conceive of such a thing (or read the works of Greek philosophers who wouldn’t be born until after they were dead).
In this case, it is not specifically that those who re-define inerrancy are embracing a contradiction. However, there seems to be an embracing of logically fallacious ideas like equivocation. Those who re-define inerrancy do not believe in the things that are widely considered to be what is called inerrancy, but they seek to identify as those who hold to inerrancy and therefore want to be regarded as though they believe it all since they adhere to the name. There is no logical reason to regard them as holding to inerrancy, since their beliefs are objectively contrary to inerrancy. But to them, as long as you call what they believe "inerrancy," they are the same as those who believe in actual inerrancy.
It is as if those who take this approach eat meat and want to say that their dietary practices are a form of veganism. They are vegans in that every meal they eat includes plant products, so part of every meal is vegan so therefore they hold to veganism – even though veganism is widely understood to mean the practice of abstaining from animal products entirely, which they obviously do not do.
Conclusion
If you have to change
the well-accepted and well-understood beliefs of a certain doctrine in order to
identify as one who holds the doctrine, you don’t hold the doctrine. Using the
name doesn’t change that.
No comments:
Post a Comment