Recently, a progressive church in Nashville, Grace Pointe Church, made news by publicizing their views about the Bible. The church proclaimed, “As progressive Christians we’re open to the tensions and inconsistencies in the Bible. We know that in can’t live up to impossible, modern standards. We strive to more clearly articulate what Scripture is and isn’t. The Bible isn’t The Word of God, self-interpreting, a science book, an answer/rule book, inerrant or infallible. The Bible is the product of community, a library of texts, multi-vocal, a human response to God, living and dynamic.” In an interview with the Christian Post the pastor, Josh Scott, said, “I think we definitely have a tendency to treat the Bible as almost an idol.”[1]
The thing that struck me first about Scott’s comments are that they are not newsworthy at all. For decades liberal mainline Christianity has trumpeted similar views about the Scriptures. This kind of view of the Bible is typical in the United Church of Christ, The Presbyterian Church USA, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Episcopal Church, and even in the United Methodist Church. In short, there is nothing new or unique about Scott’s view. Other than trading in the word “liberal” for “progressive” his view is banal.
The problems with his view are legion, however. The Bible is, in fact, God’s word. The Bible does not contain human ideas about God, it contains God’s ideas about humans. If the Bible is merely good human thoughts about God, why view the contents as normative at all? In fact, for most in the progressive stream of Christian thought, the contents of the Bible are not normative. They are subject to revision. When the Bible says something with which the reader disagrees, the reader is invited into “conversation.” When the Bible says something that is culturally not acceptable, the reader is invited to see the text as a product of the community and context in which the text emerged. In short, the Bible is no longer authoritative in any sense. The authority resides in the reader or in the reading community who can bend it according to their will. I am reminded of something Augustine wrote, “If you believe what you like in the Gospels and reject what you don’t like, it is not the Gospel you believe but yourself.”[2]
While Scott rejects inerrancy and infallibility of the Scriptures, he demonstrates no understanding of the shades of meaning of the terms. The Doctrine of Inerrancy can be turned into a bumper sticker slogan meaning, “The Bible has no errors in it.” The doctrine, however, is subtle and accounts for Scott’s critique of the Scriptures. If one is to reject inerrancy one should at least understand what the doctrine actually entails. The most exhaustive statement on inerrancy is the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.[3] Published in 1978, it was produced by 200 leading evangelicals and is the normative statement on the issue. A cursory reading would demonstrate Scott has not demonstrated any familiarity with it at all.
Infallibility is a different doctrine. Inerrancy refers to the inerrant[4] nature of the original text. Infallibility refers to the purpose of Scripture. The Scriptures are to point its readers to Salvation in Jesus Christ. Leading Baptist theologian Roger Olsen of Baylor University defines infallibility this way, The Bible “ . . . cannot fail to communicate the truth we need about God in order to be saved and transformed.”[5] I have long held to Olsen’s view of the infallibility of Scripture.
While some moderate and most progressive Baptists hold to a view of Scripture similar to Scott’s, Baptists have historically held to a high view of Scripture. The favorite affirmation of faith among moderate Baptists was the 1963 Baptist Faith and Message. Its statement on the Scriptures is quite strong. It reads:
The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is the record of God’s revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. It reveals the principles by which God judges us, and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried. The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ.[6]
Scott’s statement that the Scriptures were written by community is also flawed. It was composed in and for a community of believers, but it was written by individuals empowered by the Holy Spirit. In fact, sometimes the community is the foil against which Scriptures are written. Consider Corinth. The Corinthian congregation was not the source of the Corinthian letters. The letters were written to correct scandalous abuses occurring in the congregation. The only thing the Corinthian community provided for the letters was the context—and the bad example.
When Scott states there are tensions in the Bible, he is on stronger ground. There are multiple points of view expressed in the Bible, but the differences are overblown. For example, it is fashionable among progressives to argue Paul has a different Gospel than Jesus. In their estimation, one should look primarily at the Gospels and relegate Paul to second tier status. Paul makes different emphases than Jesus to be sure, but Paul is in keeping with Jesus. Keep in mind, one of Paul’s missionary companions was Luke. Is it possible that the Luke who wrote one of the Gospels to which progressives appeal over Paul had a perspective of Jesus that differed from Paul in any major respect? Knowing of Paul’s split with Barnabas over personal matters and Paul’s confrontation with Peter over a doctrinal/ethical matter, is it possible Paul would have shared a missionary endeavor with someone who thought he interpreted Jesus wrongly? Is it possible Luke believed Paul’s interpretation of Jesus was inconsistent with the actual Jesus? No, it is not. In fact, it is nonsensical. Paul and Luke shared a common understanding of Jesus or they would not have shared missionary journeys together. Are there differences of emphasis between Paul and the Gospels? Yes, but they are subtle and are not something we would consider to be outright conflicts.
Scott wants to make sure we hear him say that there are inconsistencies in the Bible. Are there inconsistencies in the Bible? Well, sort of. Most of them disappear under closer inspection. Others have to do with chronology like the two different orders of temptations of Jesus in Matthew and Luke. Even the Chicago Statement, however, accounts for that kind of tension.
One does not have to be a fundamentalist or even hold to inerrancy to find Scott’s statement trite. In trying to identify his brand of progressive Christianity against more conservative streams of the faith Scott has failed to properly define what he argues against, makes sweeping and unfounded judgments about Scripture, and has employed sophomoric rhetoric about the Bible.
Every Sunday, after the reading of Scripture, my congregation and I repeat the phrase, “this is the word of God for the people of God, thanks be to God.” Many other congregations do the same. We do so because the statement correctly reflects what the Bible is. In the Scriptures we are addressed by God and called by God to follow Jesus.
[1] https://www.westernjournal.com/progressive-church-bible-isnt-infallible-even-word-god/
[2] http://www.catholicdigest.com/from-the-magazine/quiet-moment/st-augustine-if-you-believe-what-you-like-in-the-gospels/
[3] https://www.etsjets.org/files/documents/Chicago_Statement.pdf
[4] I’m using the Chicago definition of the term
[5] https://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2015/11/is-the-bible-inerrant-or-infallible/
[6] https://www.nobts.edu/baptist-center-theology/confessions/Baptist_Faith_and_Message_1963.pdf
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In