65 - Evangelicals and Inerrancy: The Current Debate

Evangelicals and Inerrancy: The Current Debate
By Clark H. Pinnock

EVERYBODY has heard about the debate taking place at present between conservative Protestants for and against the inerrancy assumption in evangelical theology. It surfaced in the book Battle for the Bible by Harold Lindsell (1976), retiring editor of Christianity Today it took on tragic proportions in the continuing struggle in the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, and promises to remain prominent because of the formation of a task force charged with implementing a ten-year campaign to defend biblical inerrancy. As a participant in this discussion, and as an evangelical teaching in a theologically mainstream seminary, I propose to try to interpret the inerrancy debate for a wider audience.

1.The importance of biblical inerrancy for evangelicals

The conservative Protestants we call evangelicals are heirs of the Fundamentalist movement in addition to many other different streams, and in Fundamentalist theology belief in biblical inerrancy is nothing less than a defining assumption, as Ernest Sandeen has shown. Of course, there are intimations of it much earlier as well; for example, Augustine, when he encountered apparent contradictions in the Scriptures, went to considerable lengths to prove they were not really errors. But for our purposes it is enough to point out that the confluence of the Princeton theology of Hodge and Warfield with dispensational thinking in the Fundamentalist position meant that for Fundamentalism and its successors, biblical inerrancy had to be an important question. It should surprise no one that a fierce struggle would ensue if and when inerrancy is questioned, as it is now being questioned. Christians from other positions should make an effort to understand where evangelicals are coming from in this area, and try to sympathize with their concerns. For evangelical theology, belief in biblical inerrancy and belief in biblical authority have been very closely connected, and therefore the inerrancy debate touches upon what many people feel is the basis of authority and religious certainty.

2.The wider context of the inerrancy debate

Those who are inclined to dismiss the inerrancy debate as a curious and parochial dissension they can safely ignore and chuckle at ought to take a second thought. It must not be forgotten that there is also a

Clark H. Pinnock is Associate Professor of Theology at McMaster Divinity College, in Hamilton, Ontario. He is the author of Biblical Revelation (1971), which, as he notes, is itself a contribution to the debate over biblical inerrancy.

66 - Evangelicals and Inerrancy: The Current Debate

"crisis of the Scripture principle" (Pannenberg) in the wider theological community as well. The instructive tussle in the pages of the Christian Century just recently between Avery Dulles and Langdon Gilkey had a great deal to do with the authority of biblical categories for theology today (November 9 and 16, 1977). Evangelicals, who are one complex variety of Christians, see a very real threat posed to the cognitive authority of the canonical Scriptures in several contemporary theologies, and they are understandably concerned about the outcome of this debate about the Bible. They rightly fear that if the Bible goes silent in the church, the church will lose its direction and sense of mission. The inerrancy debate is not just a scholastic interchange on trivial questions stemming from overbelief. It is a struggle within conservative Protestantism to discover how best to respond to the challenge of modernity, and in particular its skeptical attitude toward the unique authority and relevance of Holy Scripture.

3.The battle lines in the inerrancy debate

We can distinguish at least three positions being taken at present within the evangelical coalition. First, there are the militant advocates of unqualified biblical inerrancy who continue in the tradition of Warfield and the fundamentalists. They equate the Princeton doctrine of the perfect errorlessness of the original autographs of Scripture with the historic view of the church, and they do not anticipate further doctrinal development on this subject. For them the inerrancy assumption is an essential component of true evangelicalism, if not true Christianity, and objections to it are handled defensively. A great deal of evangelical literature, as James Barr has recently shown, is impregnated with this presupposition, and a great deal of effort is expended in its defense and vindication (Fundamentalism, chapters 3, 5). Harold Lindsell's book Battle for the Bible articulates this strict position, and he probably speaks for a large majority of evangelical people.

Second, there are advocates of a modified definition of biblical inerrancy. These are often evangelicals who have been exposed to biblical studies and have come to realize that if inerrancy is to be held, as they believe, it must be broadened and nuanced so as to accommodate certain biblical phenomena, such as the presence in Scripture of a Semitic cosmology, variants in the synoptic gospels, peculiarities in genealogical lists, and the like. In speaking of "inerrant in all it affirms" (Lausanne Covenant), it is possible to liberalize the concept of inerrancy and give it a more general sense. Needless to say, there is a close parallel in Roman Catholic struggles with such terms as inerrancy and infallibility as they relate both to Scripture and the Magisterium.

These advocates of modified inerrancy (see my own book Biblical Revelation, 1971) find themselves under attack from two directions. The militant advocates suspect them of watering down the inerrancy conviction close to meaninglessness, and left wing Protestants like

67 - Evangelicals and Inerrancy: The Current Debate

James Barr ridicule the effort to be critically honest and still retain biblical inerrancy in any form. From both sides it seems that this moderate position is unstably tottering between inerrancy and non-inerrancy and likely to come down eventually on the non-inerrancy side. While it is still too early to say, I think the prediction may be quite probable, especially if the militants gain control of evangelical institutions and societies as they may well do.

Third, there are the evangelical opponents of biblical inerrancy. Though a distinct minority, they happen to include some of the best known and most capable of the scholars evangelicalism has produced: F. F. Bruce, G. C. Berkouwer, David A. Hubbard, G. E. Ladd, and others. Because it is controversial, their theology of biblical inspiration has been slow in surfacing, but the outlines of it are becoming quite clear now. Their study of the Bible and theology has convinced them that the assumption of scientific precision and accuracy, such as the term inerrancy connotes, is inappropriate when it comes to biblical realities. Not only do the critical phenomena discredit it, but the Bible itself does not place high value on precision but often subordinates it to other ends. In addition, these evangelicals have come to question what the Bible claims for itself. Contesting Warfield's theory of the perfect errorlessness of the original biblical autographs, they feel the biblical inspiration is a much less formal and more practical affair. It relates to the sufficiency of Scripture through the Spirit of God to nourish and instruct the church for its faith and life, and not to an abstract perfection. A new evangelical doctrine of biblical inspiration is emerging, and just because it calls the time-honored inerrancy assumption into question it has come under heavy criticism from the militant side. It is now a question of whether this group of evangelicals is going to be able to develop a strong and affirmative concept of biblical authority (it is not enough to be against inerrancy) such as can gain the consent and support of the evangelical constituency long used to stricter formulations.¹

4.Supportfor a new evangelical definition

Although the new theology of inspiration may only be a cloud the size of a human hand, there are forces at work which favor it over the stricter view. One is the simple practical bent of the evangelical style of faith, which believes strongly in the values of faith at work in mission and action, and shies away from intellectualism and abstraction. After all, the new evangelical view which dispenses with inerrancy is less a retreat from a high position on the authority of the Bible, than a move toward greater doctrinal simplicity. What most evangelicals want to know is how they can trust and use the Scriptures available to them, despite difficulties that crop up through transmission, translation, or inherently. How can Scripture be a lamp to their feet and a

¹ New titles to note on this line are Jack Rogers, editor, Biblical Authority (Word, Inc), Harry R. Boer, Above the Battle? The Bible and Its Critics (Eerdmans), H. N. Ridderbos, Scripture and its Authority (Eerdmans); and especially G. C. Berkouwer, Holy Scripture (Eerdmans).

68 - Evangelicals and Inerrancy: The Current Debate

light to their path? Such a question has little to do with the perfect errorlessness of non-existent autographs and a great deal to do with the continuing authority of a (slightly) imperfect document. If the new evangelicals are astute in their pastoral instincts, they may well be able to swing a good deal of support behind their non-inerrancy position. Another facet of this phenomenon is the "Sojourner" movement and mentality, by which I have in mind a fair number of evangelicals newly awakened to social concerns. Although there is no great inclination on their part to enter into this struggle, the reason they do not may be surmised and is important. The inerrancy debate has an abstract quality to it and is best engaged by intellectuals, and therefore it lacks primary stress on doing the Word of the Lord. For that reason, and because the commands of God in Scripture on our ethical duty are so plain and in no doubt at least textually, the "sojourners" have no time left for scholastic niceties, being more concerned with following Jesus. I think it is fair to say that this frame of mind is conducive toward a broader definition of inspiration, one that opens the door to practical obedience (cf. Sojourners, December 1977, p. 29).

Research into historical roots can have profound effects upon individuals living today who heed the lessons taught. Another characteristic of evolving evangelicalism is greater sophistication in historical perspective and creative delving into evangelical roots other than Fundamentalism. In the latter movement obviously there is little room for developing a non-inerrancy position, but in other streams such as English Puritanism, Wesleyanism, or revivalism, things could be different. There are evangelical historians now arguing that these traditions are different and that within them there has not been a preoccupation with precise inerrancy but a healthier concern for the spiritual power and authenticity of Scripture instead.² It is my feeling that if the opponents of biblical inerrancy frame their positive position in practical and pastoral terms, they may be able to exercise great influence in the evangelical movement and not be shoved off to the side.

5.Some closing reflections

For my part I find the specter of evangelical (or any other Christian) polarization disturbing and sad. Attack on the church from without can produce a brave and heroic response, but dissension within is debilitating and disgusting. I cannot accept the morality which allows believers so closely united on the great biblical and creedal affirmations to attack the integrity and authenticity of one another's faith and person. No term is worth battling over with these results. Such polarization as this can be more injurious to the Christian cause than any external assault, and could destroy the effectiveness in the gospel of the evangelical movement now at the height of its influence. I devoutly hope that God will raise up sensible and responsible leaders to direct us along different paths.

² See, for example, Timothy L. Smith's letter to The Christian Century, March 2, 1977, and Jack B. Rogers, Scripture in the Westminster Confession (1967).

69 - Evangelicals and Inerrancy: The Current Debate

I am all the more saddened because of my conviction that the evangelical witness in the world today is important and valuable, and needs to be strengthened not weakened. What kind of strategy is it that holds out a particular view of inerrancy for the scrutiny of outsiders, Christian and non-Christian? According to many responsible evangelicals, this is at best a problematic feature of our doctrine of inspiration and not its strongest point. There will always be advocates of biblical inerrancy; they are needed to sound the requirement of faithfulness to Scripture, but we scarcely need workers of schism, closed to dialogue, and insensitive of their need to learn from others as well. On account of such attitudes, the name of fundamentalism and now evangelicalism continues to be justly blackened.

Looking at the inerrancy debate sociologically we can see it as one manifestation of Fundamentalism in the process of change. Even conservative Protestantism is not a static phenomenon, and it is now having to face the question how it will respond to the pluralism of ideas, to the existence of fresh and novel insights. The process is a painful one, especially for Fundamentalism, because of its fortress mentality, its inability historically to view change in terms of creative possibility, while remaining serene and composed in the face of it. Although my wish may not be fulfilled, I sincerely hope evangelicalism will find room for a diversity of human opinion on the nature of biblical inspiration and discover rich and productive theological renewal as a result.

On the darker side, it is not unreasonable to conjecture that the struggle over a code-word like inerrancy has political implications as well. Pentecostal Old Testament scholar, Gerald T. Sheppard of Union Theological Seminary, sees the debate as an attempt by the northern evangelical establishment to impose technical language upon the evangelical coalition and maintain control and social cohesiveness by means of it. The older conservative leadership of evangelical institutions, alarmed at the uncertainties involved in the theological and social change visible in the movement, are moving to clamp down on unpredictable elements by means of inerrancy terminology, which, if strictly interpreted, is certain to ensure that evangelicalism will remain within fairly strict fundamentalist limits. There is surely truth in this analysis, though it omits some genuinely theological fears and focuses too exclusively on issues of power and control.³

While the issue of inerrancy is resolving itself, evangelicals ought to pray and rely on the leading of the Spirit in the community, who can cause God's truth to be preserved and made effective even in the midst of a variety of human opinions and uncertainties. Evangelicals need to learn to be less fearful and threatened by historical change, and react with less defensiveness to criticism and new ideas. God can be trusted with our fortunes as the Lord of providence and history, so that even in the midst of unfinished debates it is possible to hold forth the Word of life and live to the praise of the Glory of God.

³ See Sheppard, in the Union Seminary Quarterly Review, 32 (1977), pp. 81-94.