Tagline: “The Bible, and our strategy, are inerrant.”
The Bible is inerrant. Make no mistake about it, we are absolutely correct on that point. The wonderful thing is that everybody else agrees with us – most ARP ministers and church members, most pastors in our friend denominations and their parishioners, our dedicated network of Christian friends across the nation, and probably a fair number of faculty at Erskine and in the seminary. Heck, even World Magazine praises our move against “doctrinal drift” at Erskine. Our articles on the Supporters of Synod Facebook group are preaching to the choir (even more so considering we have explicitly told the “Others” to stay away!).
We have made Inerrancy the core issue at Synod; this is a perfect bait-and-switch. We plead with the Christian world: side with Us, defenders of the scriptures, and not with Them, those who reject the inerrant word of God and seek to undermine the faith of the Elect! What a gloriously powerful statement – and how misleading! Why?
We really don’t care about inerrancy at all.
No really, we don’t. Of course we support inerrancy and believe the idea is right. And in fact inerrancy is quite important. But inerrancy is absolutely not what we are concerned with at Erskine.
I’ll prove it. Each professor at Erskine will sign a statement swearing that he/she will affirm inerrancy. Actually, such a requirement is already in place at Erskine for new professors. Some tenured professors will not sign the document due to principle, but let’s assume that most do. OK, they agree with the inerrancy of scripture.
What now?
They believe the same basic tenants that they always have.
They teach the same way they have always taught.
They question authority the same way they always have.
They are just as intimidating to our rock-solid Christians as always.
Am I missing something here? As Dr. Evans himself points out in his essay on inerrancy, people have different opinions of scripture no matter how perfectly they regard transmission of words through the ages:
The doctrine of inerrancy does not close off interpretive discussion. Some people reject the doctrine of inerrancy because they think it restricts us to particular disputed interpretations of Scripture, such as a literal interpretation of the days of creation in Genesis 1 or a particular view of God's sovereignty. But it is quite possible for people with equally high views of the inspiration and authority of the Bible to disagree on the interpretation of individual texts. … We must make a practical distinction between the authority of the Bible and the interpretation of the Bible. The fact that the Bible itself is without error does not mean that our interpretations are inerrant.
Well? Dr. Evans himself (and correct me if I am wrong) does not believe in a literal 6-day Creation event as outlined in Genesis 1, a belief that is foreign to me but one in which I can accept (however wrong he might be). I understand that Dr. Crenshaw believes Genesis 1 is figurative language too. If Crenshaw converts to inerrancy, what have we gained? Dr. Evans accepts inerrancy – what good does that do us?
Let’s be intellectually honest. What does Synod want? Synod wants professors who agree with Synod on doctrinal issues, and doctrine is only tangentially related to inerrancy. Yes, your belief in an infallible and inerrant Word of God will shape your interpretation, but it will not force your interpretation. In other words, good Christians who agree with inerrancy will disagree about many other things.
So forcing “inerrancy” on professors is less than half the battle. Inerrancy requires some doctrinal changes, but not all of them. No two inerrancists will hold to all the same doctrinal issues – and this divergence will be even more pronounced at a school where Christians of many different denominations teach.
So you see, forcing inerrancy is a moot point because we will have all the same problems of before: differing opinions on doctrine. Dr. Crenshaw does not agree with everything Synod agrees with. Neither does Dr. Burnett. Neither does Dr. Agnew. Neither does Dr. Cheney. Neither does the Biology department. & Etc. Whether they agree on inerrancy is beside the point: Synod is actually concerned with their interpretation of scripture and their application of this interpretation in class.
Inerrancy is thus two degrees removed from the real issue:
1. Inerrancy of scripture
2. Interpretation that Creation is true, Big Bang false, Predestination, & etc
3. Application to teaching (Creationism taught, & etc)
This is why Synod is so disingenuous to focus on inerrancy. One may agree with Point 1 and still disagree with Synod's interpretation of Point 2 and 3. The “doctrinal drift” at Erskine is not over inerrancy – it is over many Christians with differing views on doctrine. Ascribing to inerrancy will not solve that. Dr. Evans will still disagree with literal 6-day Creation. Dr. Crenshaw will still believe evolution is true, as will the biology department. No view of inerrancy will change any of their minds.
But by all means, keep up the fight for “inerrancy!” We have no better rallying cry, no matter how disingenuous the cry may be.
What a wonderful distraction inerrancy be.
No comments:
Post a Comment