In the past I have criticized the inerrantist position (as popularly conceived) as being too weak. And in dealing with the assumption that theological conservatives somehow want the Bible to be their foundation for certainty about universals, thus making me a “foundationalist,” which I hotly deny, I find that I still have to explain how it is that some forms of inerrantism can be said to be influenced by modern foundationalist assumptions. And further, how the postmodern response to this error is to go in exactly the wrong direction, making things far worse. The problem is never certainty; the problem is idolatrous certainty (modernism). The answer to this is scarcely idolatrous (and pretended)uncertainty (postmodernism).
This is how it works. One day the schoolmarm Mrs. Enlightenment decided to give everybody a test, including (she thinks) the Bible. The radicals observing this exam believe that the Bible scored about 15%. The liberals think the Bible got about a 40%. The moderate evangelicals think the Bible did pretty good, better than they would have, somewhere around an 88%. And the die-hard conservative inerrantists think the Scriptures got a 100%. And this is why conservative inerrantists remind us of the nerdy kid who is always up by the teacher’s desk, arguing with her, trying to eke out another two points, so he can have his perfect score. When I differ with this last approach, it is not because I don’t believe the Bible is perfect, without error in all that affirms. I enthusiastically embrace that historic Christian belief, which is why I am willing to be called an inerrantist, at least when I am not feeling cranky about the nerdy approach to “Bible difficulties.”
My problem with all this is that the Bible doesn’t take tests, the Bible administers them. And the Enlightenment is the one with a pretty bad score, flunking actually. The Bible doesn’t meet the standard; the Bible is the standard. And this is why postmodern zeistgeist mongering is so pathetic to watch. Produce a “problem passage” from the Bible, and they begin immediately wrestling with the contours of it, guarding against totalizing readings, identifying with the trajectory of marginality and pain, and otherwise making trendy fools of themselves. Where will all this be thirty years from now?
But fundamentalism is way too truncated. And some in conservative circles do want the Bible to get the approval of all the respected scholars and scientists, talking them into giving the Bible their blue secular ribbon. These Christians have visions of future glory, when the academicians will one day give the Bible their “best in show” award.
But that is not how this whole thing will end. We will (all of us) stand before the judgment seat of Christ. We will either do so in the righteousness of Christ, or outside of it. And at that moment, when heaven and earth have fled away, and the oceans are bone dry, and the islands bow down, and the winds gather before the great throne, and the multitudes of all humanity are standing before the one to whom we must give an account, then what will happen is that we will at that time give an account. And we will give an account for every idle word that we have uttered, and we will give an account for how we handled the jots and tittles of His Word, not to mention the sentences, propositions, arguments, poems, paragraphs, pericopes, and minor prophets. And the fussy defenders of the inerrant Word of God (in Christ for all that) will stop their mouths, as Job once did, and gladly surrender their idolatrous defenses. But the triflers and hedgers, the diluters and eisegetes, the adulterators and stop-gappers, the ones who said, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not teach in seminaries and win CT book of the year awards?” — they will be dragged in front of the Lord, and will be slain in front of Him.
Whoa. Lost some of you there. Slain in front of Him? I know, I know. One of those problem passages. One of unChristlike things that Jesus once said. He was always doing that kind of thing, and the only way we got Him to stop was by putting sixteen coats of holygloss varnish over the whole text.
So what I am talking about is biblical absolutism. Not personal absolutism with proof texts to back up a personal dogmatism, but biblical absolutism. I resolved a number of years ago that I was not ever going to apologize to anybody for anything in the Bible, was not going to shuffle my feet when someone mentioned Levitical case laws, was not going to go red in the face when someone asked about Paul returning Onesimus to Philemon, and was not ever going to try to prove that according to modern science a whale could too have swallowed Jonah. Don’t meed to. Modern science already knows all about swallowing capacities. They believe that the June bug is a distant cousin to the bull moose. Those guys will swallow anything. Why should they have a problem with a whale doing far less?