Becoming Creation » Scripture

Accommodating Accommodation

Douglas — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 01:44:10 +0000

I’m down with the flu today (it’s Labor Day as I begin to write this post), so I wasn’t able to do any yard work like I intended. Instead, I listened to three more ASA meeting talks from a session that I did not actually attend. I regret that I never got around to introducing myself to Carol Hill; I’ve enjoyed several of her articles in PSCF, especially Making Sense of the Numbers of Genesis (see also follow-up letters one and two). I did meet Paul Seely at the meeting, and already knew Denis Lamoureux (see previous post).

Anyway, this was an very interesting session because all three talks represent the Evolutionary Creationist (EC) perspective (i.e., full acceptance of evidence for cosmological, geological and biological evolution including humans), and all three presenters recognize that the only reasonable way to make sense of the Genesis texts is to accept that the Ancients really had a different understanding of the structure and operation of the physical world. In other words, all three accept the principle of accommodation (vs. concordism) as the proper method for interpreting Scripture; yet each one takes this view in a slightly different direction.

Here are the audio links and my comments (or see menu page for all conference talks):

Paul H. Seely, “Does the Bible Use Phenomenal Language?” (no Slides).

The audio isn’t that good; there’s a lot of popping throughout, especially near the beginning.

Seely shows how Calvin and others reconciled Scripture with science by appealing to phenomenal (also called phenomenological) language, i.e., the notion that Scripture “concords” with science because it was written as the way things appear (sun rises, etc.) and did not claim that those appearances are real. Seely asserts that this method of reconciling Scripture and science is not valid because the ancient writers really did think that the appearances were accurate descriptions of the world.

You might suppose that he [Charles Hodge] meant an accommodation to the scientific beliefs of the times. But a close look at Hodge’s work indicates that he was say that the solid sky mentioned in Genesis was an accommodation to the sky’s appearance. The interesting thing about Hodge’s idea that the solid firmament in Genesis 1 is phenomenal language is that it violates Hodge’s own first rule of interpretation – namely, that words mean what they meant to the people of that time. [But] people in the time of the OT believed the sky was really solid. When they spoke of the solid sky, they meant it literally.

Does the bible EVER use phenomenal language? I do not think so. The reason people in bible times thought of the sky as solid and the sun as literally moving, is because the sky looks solid (especially at night) and the sun looks like it is literally moving. They accepted the appearance as the reality.

We can use phenomenal language today with respect to the sky’s appearance and the sun’s apparent motion because we know in fact that the reality is not as it appears. They ancients did not have this privilege with respect to these matters.

Carol A. Hill, “The Worldview Approach to Biblical Interpretation and Origins: What It Is and How It Differs from Accommodation” (Slides).

Her slides are really very good. If you favor a method that preserves a historical Adam, this one’s for you. I’m not entirely convinced about that myself, but am giving her perspective much more serious consideration than I had in the past (somehow I had missed this point when I read her papers on the subject). Her objections to the full-blown version of accommodation may be more a matter of semantics (what you understand the word “accommodation” to actually mean with respect to process of inspiration.

Nevertheless, her presentation helps to emphasize that God’s revelation is based as much (if not primarily) on his incarnation and interaction with humankind as events in history as it is on his delivering an accommodated (i.e., “dumbed-down”) message to the writers of Scripture. Hill’s main point is that the interaction is experienced by us as real events; then, in documenting our experiences with God, we are the ones who accommodate the events to our current understanding. I think that’s correct; I’m just not sure it follows that Adam must have been an actual person.

Denis O. Lamoureux, “The Sin-Death Problem: Toward an Evolutionary Creationist Solution” (Slides).

Apparently there were problems with the projector at the beginning, so it takes a couple of minutes to get going. Also the original deck of slides on the ASA site is not complete (only the first screen of each multi-part slide got distilled to the PDF). I made a new PDF from Denis’s original slides, so that’s why my ‘Slides’ link doesn’t go to the ASA site.

Lamoureux’s talk is not a complete argument; you’ll have to read one of his books or articles for that. This talk is just a quick “answer” to those who wonder how he can take such an unconventional view (no Adam or Fall) while still holding to a very conventional theology of the Gospel. You can also see my interview with him.

As it relates to accommodation, Lamoureux was dealing with Romans 5 and 8, which are the key sticking points for people (including Carol Hill) concerned with preserving a historical Adam. Denis wants us to recognize that, just like the ancient writers of Genesis and the OT, the apostle Paul and NT writers had no choice but to accommodate their experiences and divine-inspired doctrinal insights to their worldview. They had to give their testimony and explain their beliefs using their conceptual understanding of what is real about both the structure and function of the cosmos and the story of God’s people (history). Paul wrote about Adam as a real person because he certainly believed that Adam was a historical person. Denis’ point is that we are not compelled to do likewise; the Message-Incident Principle allows us to preserve a high view of inerrancy without requiring us to conform to Paul’s incidental context.

As Paul Seely said in his talk, Scripture is “inerrant for the purpose for which it was written.”

ou might suppose that he [Charles Hodge] meant an accommodation to the scientific beliefs of the

times.But a close look at Hodge’s work indicates that he was say that the solid sky mentioned in

Genesis was an accommodation to the sky’s APPEARANCE. The interesting thing about Hodge’s idea that

the solid firmament in Genesis 1 is phenomenal language is that it violates Hodge’s own first rule of

interpretation – namely, that words mean what they meant to the people of THAT time. [But] people in

the time of the OT believed the sky was REALLY solid. When they spoke of the solid sky, they meant it

literally.

Does the bible EVER use phenomenal language? I do not think so. The reason people in bible times

thought of the sky as solid and the sun as literally moving, is because the sky looks solid

(especially at night) and the sun looks like it is literally moving. They accepted the APPEARANCE as

the REALITY.

We can use phenomenal language today with respect to the sky’s appearance and the sun’s apparent

motion because we know in fact that the reality is not as it appears. They ancients did not have this

privelege with respect to these matters.

Inerrancy is an Error

Douglas — Thu, 21 May 2009 04:43:31 +0000

“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness so that we may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” 2 Timothy 3:16

“In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many time and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.” Hebrews 1:1-2

What does inerrancy really mean?

Christians who have studied doctrine (or even just taken a pre-membership class at their local church) will be familiar with the authority-claim that the Bible is inerrant, i.e., without error. For us Christians who have bet our very lives on the testimony of Scripture about God and Jesus, this claim seems justified on the face of it. But I have to ask, “What does inerrancy really mean, and is that even the right kind of word to describe our basis for confidence in Scripture?”

It may sound heretical to question the doctrine of inerrancy. Who among Christians would want to admit (and much less argue) that Scripture has errors? Thus, when faced with the choice between errancy vs. inerrancy, believers naturally choose inerrancy. As a result, we accept a way of thinking about the subject that weakens the case for Christ and the power of the gospel.

Doesn’t the Bible speak for itself on this subject (see verses above)? Isn’t it enough to affirm that Scripture is a reliable witness of God’s personal relationship and revelatory interaction with humankind throughout history? Christians believe that the essential message of Scripture is understandable and applicable to every generation; it is a reliable guide to faith and practice. Do we need to define it more precisely, as if that would eliminate the messy task of interpretation?

I suppose it’s helpful to have a word to describe this belief, and “inerrant” is the one we’ve been dealt in modern evangelical circles. Unfortunately, it just begs additional questions and always requires clarification (and so does not provide a more concise belief statement than 2 Timothy 3:16 or Hebrews 1:1-2). As Denis Lamoureux explains in one recent article:

Biblical inerrancy is a notion that is often seen as a distinguishing characteristic of evangelical Christianity. During this generation, it has been a hotly debated issue, resulting in a variety of conceptions. Three examples outlined in Erickson’s monumental Christian Theology (1998) include: (1) “absolute inerrancy” asserts that all scientific and historical statements in Scripture are completely precise and true; (2) “full inerrancy” also claims that the Bible is entirely true, but qualifies that assertions about nature and the past are phenomenological; and (3) “limited inerrancy” focuses on the messages of faith in the Word of God since references to science and history reflect ancient understandings.(Lamoureux, D.O. 2008. Lessons from the Heavens: On Scripture, Science and Inerrancy. PSCF 60.1:4-15.)

Hardened Arteries

Obviously, the doctrine of inerrancy was developed and articulated as such to reinforce and defend the reliability of Scripture (read the Lamoureux article for a summary of its origin), but I think it actually makes the foundation more brittle and feeble. It’s like hardening your arteries in an attempt to strengthen your circulatory system; it restricts the flow of blood and leads to a stroke or heart-attack. As a doctrine about Scripture, inerrancy hardens arteries in the body of believers, restricting the flow of living communication with God.

I think the whole idea of inerrancy is misplaced with regard to Scripture. It’s just not appropriate to apply that sort of “test” to Scripture, except with regard to its basic principles and gospel claims. So the ancient writers thought that the earth was a flat, circular disc and delivered God’s message with that background assumption about the physical structure of the cosmos. Does it make any sense to call that an error or a mistake? I don’t think so.

If incomplete and inaccurate knowledge qualifies as “error”, then everything we think we know (even about God) is an error because our knowledge is never complete. We could not handle the whole truth (or knowledge) if God revealed it completely every time he communicated with us in our given contexts. God always accommodates his message to the culture and intellectual understanding of his hearers.

Inerrancy = Concordism. Both are Wrong

Inerrancy in Christian belief is closely associated with all forms of concordism in young-earth, old-earth and progressive creationist views about the relationship of modern science and biblical truth. Concordism is the notion that the Bible is scientifically accurate wherever it references the structure and behavior of the physical world. It may sound reasonable to assume that the propositions (i.e., claims) of God’s word should correspond (have concordance) with ultimate reality. Unfortunately, this concept is flawed in the same way as inerrancy; it fails to respect the times and places in which the message was given.

As I’ve explained before, we might wish that the Bible were fully concordant and absolutely inerrant, as this would make it a cinch to “prove” that the Bible is inspired. But it just ain’t so; if we insist on using the “concordism” or “inerrancy” litmus test to diagnose the reliability of Scripture, then the Bible (and the basis of Christianity) fails the test. And if we concede to using a softer form of concordism or inerrancy, then we’re back to deciding for ourselves what is true and not true. Concordism has produced the same sort of hardened arteries in the body of believers as inerrancy has. I’ll have more to say about the problems of concordism in future posts, but I think it is sufficient here to say that God’s word came to us “through the prophets at many times and in various ways”, which includes the fact each person received God’s message and wrote within his cultural and pre-scientific context.

Infallibility of Scripture

If inerrancy is a misplaced concept, what about the term “infallibility” to describe the intended doctrine about the Bible’s reliability? Here’s what Margaret Gray Towne wrote in her book Honest to Genesis:

Some Christians claim inerrancy for the Bible. They acknowledge that some parts of the Bible are more important and more valuable than others, however they cannot concede that it contains any errors. They assert that whatever God does is flawless and inerrant. God would not put revelation into something that was imperfect, they claim.

Other Christians cannot subscribe to the assertion of inerrancy. While the Bible is alive, sharper than a two-edged sword, relevant throughout the ages, speaks truth, is a dependable guide in faith and life, and has inspired individuals and nations to justice, charity and freedom, none of these qualities requires inerrancy. It is the word of God to humankind through humans who are by nature errant. These Christians hold the Bible to be infallible, a term defined in the dictionary as without error, yet their inference is that infallible means that it is a reliable guide in faith and life and holds dependable doctrine. They do not claim that the Bible is always literally accurate in geography, numbers, history, or science or that it has not been impacted by the frailty of its human oral preservers, writers, copiers, and translators. (2003, p. 109-110)

I appreciate Towne’s perspective, and I am becoming more comfortable with the term infallible as a better word and concept than inerrancy. However, I must admit that my initial impression of “infallible” was that it is a stronger (i.e., more restrictive) term than inerrant; it also seemed to personify and idolize Scripture (what some people have called bibliolatry). Upon reflection, though, I think infallible is stronger in a good way: it affirms that God continues to ensure that his core gospel message communicates effectively to those who have ears to hear. Infallible is less restrictive than inerrant because it upholds the core doctrine without presuming to claim that this is dependent on one particular form of actualization. In other words, Scripture is infallible (i.e., doesn’t fail to accomplish its purpose) because it comes from God, not because it was actualized by one particular process of inspiration (i.e., without “errors”).

Inerrancy, taken to its logical end, results in the impression that we can learn all we need about life and doctrine from Scripture apart from God. Infallibility requires that we trust in God (the living author) to speak through the text (indeed, even in spite of its pre-scientific notions). We don’t trust Scripture because it is without “error” (i.e., without cultural limitations); we trust its message because it is from God.

In Good Company

I had written most of this post before I happened to see Alister McGrath’s recent editorial in Christianity Today. His article focuses on St. Augustine and what the evangelical church could learn from this early church father’s approach to bible interpretation in light of human knowledge about nature (i.e., science). There are several worthwhile things to consider in the article, but one thing caught my attention: Did you notice what word McGrath uses to describe the reliability of Scripture? That’s right, he used the word “infallible”, not the word “inerrant”.

So maybe some of my readers (all two or three of you!) may not agree with me about inerrancy, but at least I’m in good company.

Epistles by Peter and Paul

Douglas — Sat, 16 May 2009 12:11:24 +0000

Inerrant Wisdom by Paul Seely

Peter Enns recently reviewed Paul Seely’s book called Inerrant Wisdom: Science and Inerrancy in Biblical Perspective. The book, published in 1989, deals with the “doctrine” of biblical inerrancy and the closely related concept of concordance between Scripture and contemporary science. I haven’t read Seely’s book, but I am familiar with his more recent contributions to Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith (PSCF), the journal of the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA). You can locate several of Seely’s PSCF articles by searching the journals archives for “Seely, Paul”.

Here is a link to one of the more recent articles dealing with concordism: Seely, P. (2007). Concordism and a Biblical Alternative: An Examination of Hugh Ross’s Perspective. PSCF 59(1):37-45.

I’m in general agreement with Seely’s views about the the inadequacies and deficiencies of concordism. In my next post, I’ll share some of my own thoughts and reasons for not liking the term inerrancy. Admittedly, I’m no authority on the subject; I write as a “questioning” layperson, albeit one with sufficient scientific knowledge to know the magnitude of conflicts that make concordance and strict inerrancy untenable.

Inspiration and Incarnation by Peter Enns

And, since I’ve mentioned Peter Enns, I might as well highlight his important 2005 book called Inspiration and Incarnation (Amazon link here). I am eager to read it sometime soon. He proposes “an ‘incarnational’ model of Scripture—one that recognizes and affirms both the divine and human aspects of the Bible.” I definitely agree with that concept.

…Actually, it occurs to me that it’s my turn next month to pick a book for my men’s group book club at church; perhaps I should propose this one!