Intro.

I wrote the following essay in 1984, just before I enrolled in the Masters in Theology degree program at Fuller Seminary. Actually, based on some notes I found, this is the last of at least four different versions of this essay that was bouncing around for several years after I graduated from Biola. Some of the versions looked like I was thinking of writing a much longer first-person novel/narrative version1, but it looks like I decided to go with a shorter more journalistic essay. 

I submitted the essay to the Christian satirical publication, The Wittenburg Door.2 Mike Yaconelli, self declared “Keeper of the Door,” wrote back: This is difficult. Your point in “Orphans of a Theological War” is well taken. Your writing is well done. It’s just … it’s just … I don’t know if the Door is the place for it. I’m afraid we can’t publish the article. I’m sorry. However, I like your style and your perspective and I would hope to see more from you. Thanks for thinking of us. 

Satire or not, I guess writing about Biola University’s Inerrancy problem was a too hot to handle. Sadly, I didn’t submit any further articles to the ‘Door and probably got caught up with my own theological and personal conspiracies as a student at Fuller Seminary. In the forty years that have passed since I wrote the article, I haven’t kept track with how Biola University or Talbot Seminary has chosen to deal with Modern Biblical Scholarship, except that school publications continue to proclaim their commitment to their founding fundamentalist beliefs. And while my personal beliefs have shifted significantly in the last forty years, except for minor editing to better communicate my thoughts (and adding the definition of Biblical Inerrancy in the beginning of the article), I chose to not change the spirit, tone or conclusions that I wrote in 1984. Enjoy. 

Biblical Inerrancy: The belief that the Bible “is without error or fault in all its teaching”;3 or, at least, that “Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact”.4 Some equate inerrancy with biblical infallibility; others do not.56

Wikipedia7

Newsweek called it a “non-issue.”8 The late Francis Schaeffer in his last book. The Great Evangelical Disaster called it, “…The watershed of the evangelical world.”9 Harold Lindsell called it the first thing to go before liberalism sets in.10 John W. Montgomery called it the difference between the Church having an authoritative gospel to proclaim and not having anything relevant to say.11 During my tenure at Biola University from 1978 to 1981 we called it something to talk about between classes besides Dating.

Who would have believed that Biola University, that bastion of Fundamentalism since 1907, would have had its own Inerrancy controversy during the late 70’s and early 80’s? Who could have guessed that one New Testament professor would be fired and another would resign because of their conflicts with this doctrine? “Hey, whoa, not me.” 

I.

Having fought off the Jesuits and their Heilsgeschichte 12 at Loyola Marymount University for two years I arrived at Biola in the Fall of 1978 eager to settle into some “real Bible study.” These were the good ol’ days. Everyone was there to study the Bible, and everyone knew the enemy. Reading my old class papers from that year it was clear that the enemy was that scholar who wouldn’t stand behind the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch or those New Testament professors who used Redaction Criticism to deal with the “Synoptic Problem.” The only problem that we saw was that people weren’t getting saved! 

Things changed when I returned for the Fall semester of ’80 (I took the ’79-80 school year off). In keeping with Biola’s recent change in status (going from Biola College becoming Biola University), the Bible department began to show an appetite for Academic Respectability. Instead of drilling classes for the names of the kings of the Northern Kingdom a few professors began to ask, “What did Matthew really mean when he wrote that such and such ‘Fulfilled’ such and such Old Testament prophecy?” This Academic attitude simply took for granted the students’ familiarity with the contents of the Bible and their personal faith, and moved on to deal with apparent problems in both the Bible and Faith. This is where the questions began to crop up about whether Dr. X really believed in the Inerrancy of the Bible. 

On the surface there was no question where Biola or its professors stood in regards to Inerrancy. But there seemed to be a certain suspicion about which professors held to a “proper” view of this doctrine. A sort of theological cold-war ensued with students and administrators drawing sides, and professors trying to maintain the peace. Among the Bible majors, however, there seemed to be a small band of us who, for various reasons, would not side with either of the opposing factions. With the 

popularity of Harold Lindsell’s war analogy in “this conflict for the survival of historic Evangelicalism” it became clear that we were to become the orphans of this war. 

II.

That year (1980-81) a professor who had recognized my interest in Biblical literary criticism directed me to a book by Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative.13 In the first two chapters, Alter lucidly illustrated how the Writer of Genesis weaved various Hebrew words together to create a magnificent literary document. A magnificent literary document — There was a question in the back of my mind about how such a document could also be scientific or historical. Like a ghost in a Shakespearian play I envisioned Lindsell saying, “Once you start questioning the complete historical reliability of the Bible and begin to entertain some of the modern methodologies then before you know it, BANG! You’re denying the virgin birth or the Deity of Christ, or the need for salvation.” But it wasn’t that I questioned, “Hath God said,” but, “How hath God said?” 

III.

Since my graduation from Biola I have come to see that the fundamental problem really wasn’t Inerrancy. I am confident that I am writing for my fellow Bible majors as well as for the Bible department when I write that we were thoroughly committed to the Authority of Scripture in our lives. And all the rhetoric about “Inerrant” versus “Infallible” versus “Inspired” could be shut down by a clear understanding of what we mean by our commitment to the Authority of the Bible. 

No, it was never a question of whether we believed in the Inerrancy of the Bible. The fundamental question really was (and still is) whether there’s room for academics in the Evangelical World. If students and professors cannot dissect the great Truths without fear of censure in an Evangelical environment, then where can we do it? Certainly there’s room for “real Bible study.” The bottom line is that there are some issues, such as the Inerrancy of the Bible, that need to be addressed in a thorough academic way. Unfortunately, this isn’t going to get done if we’re just alternating between putting theological diapers on baby Christians or guarding ancient treasure chests that we’re forbidden to touch much less examine. 

IV.

The careers of several men, competent Biblical scholars and students, have been “rearranged” if not destroyed because of this debate. And for what? If it hadn’t been Inerrancy, would it have been the Charismatic Movement, or possibly the Role of Women in the Church? Perhaps it would have been an old debate, like Baptismal Modes or something silly like the Pre-Tribulation/Post-Tribulation debacle. Either way, my class chose Inerrancy as the method of skewering those who were too curious or weren’t politically astute enough to keep their views to themselves. It’s little wonder that the World finds us an odd historical curiosity. We claim to have the message of Salivation but we can’t even read the Bible together without controversy or censure. 

So before you register for that next class in Biblical hermeneutics, or teach that next home Bible study, or attempt to enlighten that poor ignorant sinner about the Faith, maybe you should reevaluate whether you really believe that the Truth of God can stand on its own two feet. Is there enough room in your Christianity for academic investigation? I certainly hope so. Because if there isn’t any room, you may one day find yourself an orphan of a theological war or worse. 

Sources:

  • Images: Nuremberg Bible detail by Deb Nystrom 2017-10-07, https://flic.kr/p/Y9A9jW 
  • See footnotes for additional references. 
  1. The preface to one version began: “I looked down at my notes. There were a few poorly drawn cartoons, a line or two of hieroglyphics and a lot of blank space. Over to my left a girl was doing her English homework. And above it all, like piped in Muzak, Dr. K. was giving us his fifteenth introductory remarks in our class on Romans. I don’t I think Webster would define this as education.” Other versions listed the real names of the professors and their character traits like characters in a novel.[↩]
  2. According to Wikipedia , “The Wittenburg Door, sometimes known as simply The Door, was a Christian satire and humor magazine, previously published bimonthly by the non-profit Trinity Foundation based in Dallas, Texas. The magazine started publication in 1971 and ceased publication in 2008. It was then published only online by John Bloom until its recent transition to a new group of “door keepers”. The title was a reference to the Ninety-Five Theses written by Martin Luther in 1517 that he is believed to have posted on the door of the All Saints’ Church, Wittenberg. A documentary, Nailin’ it to the Church, by Murray Stiller was made in 2009.”  The publication appears to still exist as an online magazine at https://www.wittenburgdoor.com/[↩]
  3. Geisler, NL. and Roach, B., Defending Inerrancy: Affirming the Accuracy of Scripture for a New Generation, Baker Books, 2012.[↩]
  4. Grudem, Wayne A. (1994). Systematic theology: an introduction to biblical doctrine. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press. p. 90. ISBN 978-0-85110-652-6. OCLC 29952151.[↩]
  5. McKim, DK, Westminster dictionary of theological terms, Westminster John Knox Press, 1996.[↩]
  6. Geisler, N. L. (ed), Inerrancy, Zondervan, 1980, p. 22. “The trouble is that such a distinction is nowhere to be found in Jesus’ own teaching, and seems to be precluded by His testimony both to the unqualified historical accuracy and the inspiration of the Old Testament … The attempt to discriminate … seems to be a product of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries”.[↩]
  7. retrieved 2024-02-04, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy[↩]
  8. April 26, 1982, p. 89.[↩]
  9. The Great Evangelical Disaster (Westchester, Illinois; Crossway Books, 1984), p. 51.[↩]
  10. Battle for the Bible, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976), p. 23.[↩]
  11. God ‘ s Inerrant Word, (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany Fellowship, Inc., 1974), p. 39.[↩]
  12. Heilsgeschichte (noun) Heils·ge·schich·te ˈhīlzgəˌshiḵtə plural-s: an interpretation of history emphasizing God’s saving acts and viewing Jesus Christ as central in redemption. Merriam-Webster (retrieved 2024-02-04), https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Heilsgeschichte[↩]
  13. The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, Inc., Publishers, 1981).[↩]