Our extremely well read friend, Dan, has written a thought-provoking post on how he understands scripture here.
Here are four more random thoughts, unrelated to Dan's post, on rethinking the doctrine of scripture:
- It should recognise the significance of the ecclesial womb in which the canon grew – thus also the correct principles of interpretation (the rule of faith)
- It needs to recognise that modern forms of academic discourse may not be the most appropriate contexts in which to banter, with intellectual integrity, the term 'inerrancy'; the phenomena of the text must shape such debate rather than external deductive wringers (i.e. 'inspired by God' + 'God never lies' = inerrancy) .
- That said, speech about the biblical texts in ecclesial and doxological contexts should not have to be as restrained, detached and coy in its dogmatic formulations (perhaps talk of inerrancy is more appropriate here, so long as it does not consistently breach the eschatological limitations on any claims about truth – cf. 1 Cor. 13:12)
- The task of bridging the academic and ecclesial contexts can perhaps best proceed by negotiating a relational ontology in defining the inspiration of scripture, one which reframes the truthfulness of scripture in terms of our communal and personal stance towards the texts and our daily practices.
4 comments:
Chris, why do we need to even use the word inerrancy? I find the word to laden with so much baggage that it is unhelpful. I like Wright's take on the authority of scripture and thinking of this text as a living text!
I disagree with #4.
"The task of bridging the academic and ecclesial contexts can perhaps best proceed by negotiating a relational ontology in defining the inspiration of scripture, one which reframes the truthfulness of scripture in terms of our communal and personal stance towards the texts and our daily practices."
How is "reframing the truthfulness" any different than doubting its significance?
I don't believe that any text is 'inspired" in the way conservatives believe (God's character promise, etc.). And I don't believe in a "living text" any more than I believe in any other literature being "living". That is, certain human qualities or characteristics are common experience(s) within humankind. People can relate to a poem or a novel just as easily as Scripture. So, I don't think there is any uniqueness to Scripture. I guess I am a humanist.
Mark, I would suggest that the word "inerrancy" has a venerable tradition behind it. Worth listening to even if we actually end up abandoning it.
Hi Chris,
"How is "reframing the truthfulness" any different than doubting its significance?"
Ths would be to misunderstand my point, but hey, misunderstanding was likely given my exceptionally brief summary points! I would suggest that a reframing of the issue is necessary precisely because the scripture is significant.
Thanks Jonathan, I know Philip!
Post a Comment