Inerrancy - still the wrong word, but is there a right one?
In comments on his post A new statement of biblical inerrancy – part 1 Chris Tilling asks whether he should use a different label, which is also, of course, a challenge to come up with a different label. Of course (given what I said in comments and here) I think he should use another label. It is less easy to come up with one.
In the meantime, he’s published a part 2 to that post, which outlines his own Tilling Statement of Inerrancy This, interestingly, makes no mention of inerrancy, but is rather a confession of faith about scripture expressed effectively as a catena of scriptural references. It comes with the proviso that not every statement applies to every part of the canon. Again this differs from statements about inerrancy which work with scripture as a kind of super-genre about which the same things may be said of very part.
What labels - especially given this statement, might be appropriate instead of inerrancy?
- His use of 2 Tim 3:16 might point not only to the inspiration of scripture, but the usefulness of scripture. Somehow, though, “the utility of scripture” lacks a certain je ne sais quoi. (Holy Bible, Batman, why’ve you got ” Tim 3:16 on your utility belt?)
- His use of Heb 4:12 might point to scripture as active, though the activity of scripture likewise lacks a certain something.
- The final clause of the faith affirmations is (without a biblical reference) the trustworthiness of scripture. I have to say that this is the one that gets my vote in terms of naming the concept.
What I like about Chris’ statement, both the affirmations and the commitments, is that it is more about our engagement with scripture than it is about definitions, more about using it than encapsulating it. That’s probably why it can’t easily find room for inerrancy as part of its content, and why it seems very strange to me to put it in the title.
As I’ve said before, I have problems with using a word (inerrancy or any other) in ways that are so at odds with what the word normally denotes. It seems to me that trustworthiness not only is free of that defect, but it works more to encourage an attitude to scripture in the praxis of the Church and the Christian, than it does to offer a dogmatic straightjacket. It depicts an open rather than a closed Bible.
June 16th, 2007 at 3:43 am
I don’t think we need any one term. I like useful, active, certain, trustworthy, and authoritative–each in their proper context.