argument in order to provide an illustration of the hopelessly paradoxical position in which critical believing scholarship finds itself. The case in point is the contemporary application of I Tim 2.11–15. The issue of women’s ordination is a paradigmatic instance of how conservative evangelicals can so deeply disagree over what Scripture teaches, suggesting to younger evangelicals (among other things to be sure) that inerrancy may not be as sufficient a norm for faith and practice as previously imagined.
The third Recognition investigates the similarities between a fully divine and fully human Savior and a fully divine and fully human Scriptures. After a brief engagement with Norman Geisler’s syllogistic argument for inerrancy, I suggest that the tension between the divine and human is not always fairly presented in such analogies and that evangelical interpretations of divine standards for the Bible and Christ are categorically disparate, rendering the comparison between them impertinent to younger evangelicals. I attempt to draw an analogy between Christ’s sinlessness and Scripture’s errorlessness and conclude that the analogy is not only not necessary, but only vaguely helpful.
Chapter four presents the fourth Recognition and was previously published in slightly modified form as “Eucharist Then, Scripture Now: How Evangelicals can Learn from an Old Controversy” in Evangelical Review of Theology 30 (2006): 322–338.19 Recognition 4 works to allow for a clearer perspective on the evangelical preoccupation with Scripture. In my own classroom experience, I have noticed how it is usually much easier to acknowledge tacit motivations that egg disputants on in historical controversies, especially those that are seemingly unrelated to one’s own theological agenda. For example, if a conservative evangelical student were to study, say, a heated dispute over the meaning of a Catholic sacrament, chances are that a young evangelical would approach the issue in a more objective manner. In order to shed light on some of the implicit factors that contribute to the anxiety over the trustworthiness of the Bible, I set out to draw a comparison between contemporary controversies amongst evangelicals regarding the Bible and sixteenth century disputes over the Eucharist. The parallels between the existential, ecclesial and social factors that contributed to Luther’s position on the Eucharist, in particular, and those that influence present day evangelicals can help bring to the fore some of the historically situated-ness of evangelical doctrines of Scripture. Though it is very common to give lip service to the historicity of doctrinal constructions, comparing one of Luther’s controversies with present day battles for the Bible can help show how there is more to formulating doctrine and living the Christian life than simply defending what one happens to think that the Bible teaches.
Nevertheless, even in the face of these recognitions I was for some time able to continue trusting in inerrancy. Irrespective of the difficulties experienced in articulating a doctrine of Scripture, I was convinced that on account of the concept and phenomenon of a biblical canon, evangelicals always had a safe place of retreat where they could go back to the drawing board as it were. The last two Recognitions purpose to demonstrate that neither Scripture nor “Tradition” (nor any other aspect of the faith) can be said to have “ultimate authority” for the believer. The nature of the case is more adequately apprehended by understanding that each aspect of authority creates and sustains the other. Or as a recent statement by Catholics and Evangelicals puts it: “We affirm together the coinherence of Scripture and tradition.”20 To absolutize one particular of the formative and constitutive factors that eventuated in the biblical canon, as rhetorically effective and psychologically reassuring as it may be, is not practically or historically commensurate with what seems to actually have taken place during the formation of the Bible. God’s people are always creatively developing concepts and contexts with which to facilitate a faithful and meaningful interaction between the divine and a given cultural milieu.
A final chapter draws the Recognitions together in a brief, but candid, discussion that reiterates that dogmas of inerrancy should only be promulgated if those bits and pieces of historical and biblical data that do not necessarily cohere with the inerrancy dogma are also considered with integrity and not explained away. If evangelical teachers continue with a pietistic optimism with respect to the strength of the inerrancy doctrine for the demands of the 21st century, considerable portions of the upcoming generation of evangelicals will not be able to stand against the cultural tides. Who can tell what their reactions will be to the recognition that the actual nature of the Bible does not agree with what they were initially told by their trusted leaders, their original defenders of the faith?
This book is only secondarily written with younger evangelicals in mind, though I certainly hope that they will take the time to wrestle with the material presented here. (I have appended an Afterword for any who venture to do so.) The book is primarily intended for evangelical teachers and leaders, whoever they may be, who are interested in learning more of the tensions that younger evangelicals can experience when burdened with an inerrancy dogma of the ETS/EPS type. The book need not be read from cover to cover. Philosophers, for example, might take some interest in Recognitions One and Two; theologians in Recognitions One, Three, and Four; historians in Recognitions Four, Five, and Six; and biblical scholars in Recognitions Two (along with the discursus), Five, and Six. It goes without saying, though, that readers are encouraged to read the entire book. One advantage to reading the whole is that it brings to light the interdisciplinary nature of the recognitions and reveals in one volume how the inerrancy dogma fares from different vantages. The details that accrue in multiple disciplines are not so easily reconciled.
I make no pretense of providing knockdown arguments for the positions taken below. What follows can only nudge readers to respond in appropriate ways. After all, entire books could easily be written for each of the chapters below. Hence, only the contours of possible trajectories of younger evangelical thought are presented here: some in more detailed fashion (chapters 5 and 6); others with broader strokes (chapters 1 and 3). Nevertheless, it is sincerely hoped that some will pause to consider the possibility that inerrancy can be antithetical to the spiritual formation of younger evangelicals and that, unless new evangelical dogmas of Scripture are also presented as acceptably orthodox, there will be little peace for younger evangelicals who wish to remain faithful “people of the book.” For what Francis Collins says of intelligent design applies with much more force to the dogma of inerrancy: “The disproof of an unnecessary theory like ID can shake the faith of those who are asked to equate their belief in God with their belief in the theory.”21
1 The market is currently flooded with books on postmodernity and Christianity. Three of the more balanced works are Roger Lundin, The Culture of Interpretation: Christian Faith and the Postmodern World. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993); Anthony C. Thiselton, Interpreting God and the Postmodern Self: On Meaning, Manipulation, and Promise. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995); and William J. Wainwright, ed., God, Philosophy, and Academic Culture: A Discussion between Scholars in the AAR and the APA. (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996). Bruce Ellis Benson, Graven Ideologies: Nietzsche, Derrida, and Marion on Modern Idolatry. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002) views postmodernity very positively; Brian Ingraffia, Postmodern Theory and Biblical Theology: Vanquishing God’s Shadow. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995) absolutely negatively.
2 “Evangelicals” in this work refers to those Christian believers of whatever denomination (or non-denomination) who affirm the views of Scripture associated with the Evangelical Theological Society, the Evangelical Philosophical Society, and other like-minded affiliations.
3 The Younger Evangelicals: Facing the Challenges of the New World. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002).
4 In some circles, inerrancy has unhappily been identified as the only doctrine necessary for describing what is minimally required to consider oneself an evangelical
