Whenever I listen in to evangelicals talking about the Bible and how to use it, I find myself somewhere between being amused and being perplexed—because their views about the Bible just aren’t biblical.
There are two main reasons, biblically speaking, why they’re wrong. I think the way I’ll be using the Bible to make my point is something evangelicals would recognize from evangelical pulpits, which is to say I don’t think I’m using godless liberal exegetical methods.
One, the Bible makes a strong claim about the identity of “the Word of God.” In John 1, it’s quite clear that Jesus is the Word of God. Unless Jesus has been incarnated twice—once as a human being and then again as a book—the Bible is not the Word of God. Evangelicals ought to choose which they worship, Jesus or a book about Jesus.
Two, the only claim the Bible makes about anything approaching inerrancy is 2 Timothy 3:16-17:
All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work. (NRSV)
That’s a low ball claim for biblical authority when it’s compared to what evangelicals would have us believe about the Bible. It’s a pragmatic view: scripture should be kept around because it helps us do good in the world. It doesn’t say scripture is useful for making truth claims. You can argue that truth claims about the Bible are necessary to equip the people of God for good works, but you are arguing that; the Bible says no such thing.
Evangelicals’ need for the Bible to be true in ways the Bible doesn’t even need itself to be true belies the sin of idolatry—idolatry of the very Bible they’re making false claims about. Given a choice between the reasons the Bible claims it’s important and ones they’ve made up themselves, they’d rather make the life of Jesus a second-rate source of authority next to their own made-up reasons why their ideology about the Bible is truer than true.
Nicely said.
1. The spellcheck suggestion for inerrant is ignorant.
2. Doesn’t the first commandment say something about having only one G-d? To this lowly reporter, that would rule out calling a book “the word of G-d”.
I’m hardly an expert, but I think you might be mixing Evangelicals and Fundamentalists. I’d say Evangelicals are a bit loser when it comes to scripture as inerrant. Ask either (and of course their not exclusive of each other) about Bible Idolatary and you’ll get plenty of feedback. It’s a charge they’re not unaware of.
How do you respond to Vedic Scripture, or Hebrew Scripture, or the Koran; where the belief is the word is so divinely “true”, one shouldn’t even risk translation. Would you also accuse them of idolatary? I wouldn’t.
I consider fundamentalists to be a subset of evangelicals, with a few outliers. Evangelicals often use inerrancy language, even if they take a more limited view of inerrancy. Yes, a very few will talk about Bible-olatry, but my point is that is goes much deeper than they realize.
I don’t know what non-Christians choosing not to translate their scriptures has to do with an annoying inconsistency in beliefs among evangelicals.
I think you and our friend iMonk both seem to largely agree. I’m not sure if you are raising disagreements with his post or with is bible quoting example Christian.
Obviously I understand that this is a short post but it seems to be a little simplistic to me and I’m not sure your example about the use of John 1 is all that valid because of this. I find it very difficult to believe that even the most hardened of Biblical Literalists take that verse to mean that Jesus or God is a book!
I’d be interested to hear more detail about how having the Bible as a resource affects your relationship with God and your day to day journey with Christ.
[…] explains that Evangelicals’ beliefs about the Bible are unbiblical (“Making Chutney,”). David Pyle writes about “the problem with being lambs” […]