A Response to Michael Spencer on Inerrancy

Introduction: Some New Action on the Debate on Inerrancy

As soon as I finished the rough draft of my conference paper, “Calvin, Bavinck, and 21^st Century Views of Inerrancy,” I became aware of the 2010 March/April edition of Modern Reformation Journal, “Inspiration and Inerrancy.” Fortunately, the majority of the essays are more or less revisions of the older works found in the (RealApologetics Recommended) books Inerrancy, Inerrancy and Hermeneutic, Inerrancy and the Church, Scripture and Truth, and Hermeneutics, Authority, and Canon.

As far as any Christian apologist is concerned, the most enjoyable portion is the “Rountable Discussion on Inerrancy” with Reformed scholar Michael Horton (Ph.D., Oxford), Michael Spencer (“Internet Monk”), and Donald Richmond, a Reformed Episcopalian presbyter. Horton is a firm proponent of the Chicago Statement of Inerrancy, which was signed by other big names in 1978 like Wayne Grudem, R.C. Sproul, J.I. Packer, Carl Henry, and Francis Schaeffer.

The whole discussion is great. No one was bullish or prideful, and yet, no one was trying to be so nice so as to gloss over the vitality of Scripture’s truthfulness. A number of important insights flew out of the friction (which, like all cross examination, is the tasty dessert of Christian apologetics). In any case, since RealApologetics.org is doing a series on inerrancy and responding to contemporary criticisms, the majority of this brief interaction will involve Michael Spencer (iMonk, and this criticism is both timely, as it deals with the latest scholarship on inerrancy, but untimely, as Spencer – bless his heart - is in serious condition; do pray). Time simply does not allow a full commentary or exposition of the whole article, which may make it seem unfair. But my intention is not a review, but a response to Michael Spencer’s objections. The real meat of any debate or “roundtable discussion” is in the heat of cross examination, the point of tension, the good (and bad) arguments – and to those bad arguments we now turn.

Spencer’s Objections to Chicago-Style Deep Dish Inerrancy

“I do not so much believe that the concept of inerrancy is untrue as that it is inefficient, unnecessary, and divisive…the church has long used perfectly adequate language about the Bible, such as can be found in the Westminster Confession‘s article on Scripture, without the use of inerrancy and its required special definitions… why is the technical definition of Chicago-style inerrancy necessary when the Reformed confessions have a good and workable statement on Scripture?”

My response to Spencer is, why be content with “good” when we can have something “great”? History demonstrates that OK, “good” theology/formulation is sufficient for only a moment, while great theology is crafted so carefully that it sustains through the ages. Simply put, Westminster was good for 1646, and Westminster plus the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy is great for the 20th-21st century.

If our interest is only in temporary fixes, then we will submit to those temporary fixes in history – and we will pay the price later on. But if it can be demonstrated that certain confessions are simply incapable of dealing with present criticism (such as the criticism delivered by liberal and neo-liberal critics from 1850-1988), it is fully necessary to forge a more powerful, robust, and accurate statement.

Consider, what if Spencer said, “The formulations at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 are unnecessary. Nicaea in 325 was perfectly sufficient”? We’d obviously respond by saying, “Nicaea’s description of the doctrine of Christ’s divinity is fabulous, but due to more creative criticism, the church needed further clarification.” Surely, Spencer would agree.

Why then, does he not favor adding/revising the doctrine of inerrancy to the historical doctrine of infallibility? He suggests that it is altogether unnecessary to go beyond Westminster (1646) – which was formulated at least a century before Modernism’s main attacks on Scripture’s truthfulness even came out of the gate. But if Spencer is suggesting that the Chicago Statement of Inerrancy is simply unneeded, an argument is needed in some form.

“My contention is not that the Bible has errors in what it teaches, but that the material in the Bible that operates in a broader sense of truth–rather than the narrow, technical sense–deserves better treatment than having to conform to this modernistic and confusing term.”

Spencer’s point is well heard – which is why it is confusing to mention. Spencer puts Chicago inerrantists in contrast to his own view, as if they were in disagreement on this issue regarding senses of truth.

They aren’t. Chicago Statement proponents have been aware of this concern:

1. That’s why Roger Nicole wrote the essay “The Biblical Concept of Truth” in the 1992 publication Scripture and Truth. His conclusion is as follows: “The full Bible concept of truth involves factuality, faithfulness, and completeness. Those who have stressed one of these features in order to downgrade either or both of the others are falling short of the biblical pattern…Truth, in the biblical sense, is ultimately associated with the triune God Himself as a perfection of His being. By His singular mercy truth is communicated in a finite though adequate measure to rational creatures, angelic and human, so they can distinguish between truth and error, veracity and mendacity, straightforwardness and deceptiveness. God is always on the side of what is true and right,” (296).
2. That’s why D.A. Carson associated “inerrancy” with “assertion” in the 1986 ICBI publication Hermeneutics, Authority, and Canon: “Inerrancy does not mean that every conceivable sequence of linguistic data in the Bible must be susceptible to the term ‘inerrant,’ only that no errant assertion occurs,” 31. He can also be found saying the same thing two decades later in this 2008 video.
3. That’s why Kevin Vanhoozer, likewise, associated “inerrancy” with “assertion” in his 2005 essay “Lost in Interpretation“: “Perhaps we need to rehabilitate the classic term “infallibility” to make sure that theological interpreters of Scripture do not become mere information processors. Inerrancy is most appropriate as a description of biblical assertions,” 113.

In short, it appears that even the most staunch defenders (and the original endorsers) of the 1978 Chicago Statement of Inerrancy have thoroughly anticipated Michael Spencer’s “contention.” Inerrancy does primarily deal with contexts where Scripture is making statements that can either be directly “true” or “false.” That’s never been an issue – and even in places where it has been, it has been thoroughly addressed by Chicago proponents. I realize such rountable discussions have limits in time and space, but I do hope Spencer would interact with ICBI proponents a little more on this issue of truth/error – especially since it is apparently his primary concern.

“If I say “Genesis is without error” to an audience of sharp, science-minded students, they will read Genesis and say, “Then there is water above the firmament and the earth is the unmovable center of the universe.””

This is simply false. If the audience is “sharp,” they will be aware of the cultural, social, contextual, literary, and geographical context through which Moses was writing, and most likely come to other conclusions than the one given. How the “sharp, science-minded students” understand “error” is the issue, and it is not in the hands of Spencer or the scientists to define what it means outside of the context of Genesis. In other words, standards of truth and error are defined by context, not by the external, 21st century reader. (And is it being suggested that telling Augustine, Luther, Calvin, and the Westminster divines that “Genesis without error” would lead them to believe in geo-centricism?)

Again, this was fully addressed by ICBI members. It is simply untrue to say that the doctrine of inerrancy requires, let alone suggests, young earth creationism. This error (no pun intended) was specifically refuted in the official IBCI publication Inerrancy and Hermeneutic in 1988. We’re left wondering, where is Spencer’s interaction with the primary sources? If one is going to critique the Chicago Statement of Inerrancy – which was the primary fruit of the International Council of Biblical Inerrancy – it makes sense to at least give references to the official publications produced by the International Council of Biblical Inerrancy.

“Inerrancy was the cry of the takeover of the Southern Baptist Convention by conservatives, primarily because the term immediately raised the question of “do you really believe the Bible?” Baptist moderates may have had a neo-orthodox view of Scripture, but they believed the Bible was true. It was the inerrancy debate that determined exactly how that answer would and wouldn’t hold water, and it was along the lines I discussed above: literalism.”

Again, Spencer’s concern is legitimate, but his argument is not. The inerrancy debate arose not because of challenges to literalism or Southern Baptist presuppositions. It arose because of new challenges to the infallibility of the Scriptures, especially in Jack Rogers and Donald McKim’s publication The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible. Even if inerrancy was the product of literalistic fundamentalists, that says nothing about the truth value of the doctrine of inerrancy properly stated. The origins of a debate do not disqualify the conclusions of the debate anymore than the abuse of the truth determines the validity of the truth. It doesn’t matter if Southern Baptists, Muslims, Mormons, or aliens from Mars misuse, misunderstand, and abuse the doctrine of inerrancy, that doesn’t mean the actual doctrine of inerrancy properly defined is unnecessary, untrue, or illegitimate. Indeed, whether or not some or most of self-proclaimed “inerrantists” or “conservatives” believe in a “literal” interpretation of Genesis does not determine the original content, original purpose, and original teaching of the Chicago Statement of Inerrancy.

Spencer’s assertion here, then, is a bit unhelpful. But he continues along these lines:

“The problem may be fundamentalist literalism, but 90 percent of the people who use the term “inerrancy” in my denomination mean exactly that: literalism in every way possible. This is my complaint about its inefficiency and misuse. I agree with you completely about genre and interpretation, and I agree with you completely about all the diverse interpretation possible in the Chicago Statement. There may be room for a broad and safe use of the word in the academy; but here where evangelicalism rules the landscape, “inerrancy” is a test for “Do you believe the Bible literally, oppose evolution, oppose women in ministry?” and so on. The word is a lot of trouble. More trouble than it’s worth, in my view.”

One thing is clear: Spencer’s perception of inerrancy, and not the actual publications of the ICBI, is determining his entire argument against the conclusions of the ICBI. It is simply hard to take Spencer’s criticism seriously when he doesn’t let inerrantists define themselves, but instead blindly associates the doctrine with the undesirable and notorious young earth creationist, evangelical fundamentalists.

The Bane of the First Chicago Statement: The Second Chicago Statement

I do not excuse Spencer for this poor interaction, but I must stop for a moment and sympathize with him in one regard: there are understandable reasons for why certain branches of evangelicalism have (unfortunately and illegitimately) associated themselves with the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.

First things first: most people who criticize inerrancy aren’t even aware that there are two Chicago statements which are by no means of equal value. The first, “The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy” (1978) is on the doctrine of inerrancy and is by far the most popular and most carefully-crafted of the two. It was exposited by R.C. Sproul and signed by over 200 scholars from around the world. The second, “The Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics” (1982) is on generic hermeneutics (!), which was not well done and, consequently, had less than half the support of the first statement. Norman Geisler exposited the statement and unfortunately overstated his case against theistic evolution:

Article XXII

WE AFFIRM that Genesis 1-11 is factual, as is the rest of the book.

WE DENY that the teachings of Genesis 1-11 are mythical and that scientific hypotheses about earth history or the origin of humanity may be invoked to overthrow what Scripture teaches about creation.

Since the historicity and the scientific accuracy of the early chapters of the Bible have come under severe attack it is important to apply the “literal” hermeneutic espoused (Article XV) to this question.

Article XV with exposition, is:

WE AFFIRM the necessity of interpreting the Bible according to its literal, or normal, sense. The literal sense is the grammatical-historical sense, that is, the meaning which the writer expressed. Interpretation according to the literal sense will take account of all figures of speech and literary forms found in the text.

WE DENY the legitimacy of any approach to Scripture that attributes to it meaning which the literal sense does not support.

Writing confessions and statements of faith require an unusual competence in articulate communication. Geisler simply does not demonstrate it here.

We should state the obvious at this point: the supporters of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy – which says nothing about literalism, young earth creationism, or anything of that nature and by no means requires a certain hermeneutic that support such convictions – are not necessarily the supporters of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics.

It reminds me of Islam in American politics. Mike Gallagher once said on the radio, “Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all the terrorists are Muslims.” It might not be entirely accurate, but his point is well taken: don’t misunderstand the majority because of the extremity of the minority.

The same can be said for literalistic/dispensationalist fundamentalists and inerrancy: not all inerrantists are literalistic fundamentalists, but all literalistic fundamentalists claim to be “inerrantists.” As a result, inerrantists unjustly get a bad name.

Now, I have not, due to time constraints, demonstrated that critics like Michael Spencer are mistaking the supporters of the second Chicago Statement (hermeneutics) with the first (inerrancy) Chicago Statement. But it is, by all means, clear that Spencer and others struggle with distinguishing the positions of the two. Spencer, like countless other critics of the doctrine of inerrancy, confuses the position and attitude of the first statement with that of the second statement. As such, we must forever learn this lesson: never assert that inerrancy is inevitably associated with literalistic fundamentalism unless you can sufficiently demonstrate that to be true. No one, as far as I know, has done that in any context.

Thus, Spencer has a false perception of the doctrine of inerrancy that is wholly understandable: extremists ruin our perception of everything. Nevertheless, Spencer’s arguments are not a compelling reason to doubt the doctrine of inerrancy or the legitimacy of using the term “inerrant” or “inerrancy”.

“it is those who have run up the flag of inerrancy who owe the rest of the body of Christ an explanation for why previous formulations of Scripture’s authority were not adequate and why an insistence on inerrancy reflects the meaning of Scripture’s own teaching and the church’s own confession better than the language of those upon whose shoulders we stand.”

If official ICBI books with dozens of contributors, who are some of the greatest Christian scholars of the last quarter century (see other official publications here), in addition to the unofficial publications in countless books and journal articles that specifically address Spencer’s concern, are not enough for him, what is? Do we need an 8^th ecumenical council for there to be adequate grounds in improving the doctrine of Scripture?

The burden of proof is on Michael Spencer: demonstrate that the entire field of biblical criticism since 1646 leaves the church with no adequate grounds for clarifying the doctrine of Scripture in confessional form today. I suspect that he simply cannot do so.

Conclusion

Please remember that I’ve skipped over countless good things said by Spencer, Horton, and Richmond. But the focus of this brief response was simply to show that Spencer’s objections to inerrancy, as defined by the Chicago Statement of Inerrancy, are uncompelling, and I hope you see that they are.