I'm sure that by now, those of you who have read my essays on the different schools of theology have noticed that I have interjected essays on related topics in between the ones on theology. Today I am doing that again. I am including an essay in between the most recent one on Process Theology and the next one, which will be on Theology of Hope, which will be written in the next few days.
As I pointed out in one previous essay, I will again state that many people validate or invalidate a particular theology on the basis of what they believe "the Bible says." They will tend to take a literalist or "quick to verse" approach in order to establish what they believe to be "sound doctrine." These two approaches give little or no room for reading "what the Bible says" in context. They basically consist of reading and quoting the Bible in a vacuum.
Before moving on to Theology of Hope, I would like to address an important issue regarding the role of Scripture in the construction of a theological system. It is the issue of inerrancy, i.e the position that since the Bible has been "divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit," there is no way that it can contain anything erroneous in content. Those who subscribe to the notion of inerrancy believe that if Scripture does contain error, then by logical extension, the possibility of error would have to be extended to the Holy Spirit as well. In this line of thinking, since it is impossible for God to err, then it should also be impossible to find errors in the book which God has inspired.
In order to avoid unnecessary confusion, I will, for the purposes of this essay, bypass the issue of the various meanings of the word "inspiration," and move on to the issue of in inerrant book. The issues of whether or not the Bible is an inerrant document can be addressed (though not fully resolved) by raising the following questions:
1. When we claim that the Bible is inerrant, are we making that claim for the Bible in its original document or does that claim only extend to the manuscripts and translations which were written after the original document had disappeared?
2. If the claim for inerrancy is only made for the original document of Scripture, on what objective basis other than faith do we make that claim?
3. If we believe that the claim for inerrancy does not extend to the subsequent manuscripts and translations, then how do we go about establishing a biblical theology, given the fact that there is variation within the manuscripts and translations?
4. At the end of the day, is inerrancy really important or is it a moot issue?
To question #1, there can be more than one answer or perspective. Those who use the historical critical approach to the Bible (author, date, audience, reason for writing, styles of writing, sources of information, literary genre, redaction, etc.) tend to leave room for error in both the original document and the manuscripts and translations. The reason for this is because they acknowledge the human condition of frailty and proneness to error in all human endeavors. While they will not outright deny the divine inspiration of the Bible, their understanding of "inspiration" does not cancel out the possibility of error.
Those who utilize the textual critical approach ( comparison of manuscripts and translations to "reconstruct" the original document) tend to favor the view that inerrancy only applies to the original document. They have seen enough variations of length and content in the manuscripts to justify not attributing inerrancy to the manuscripts and translations.
Those who take a devotional or literalist approach will by and large avoid all the "razzle dazzle" of both historical and textual criticism. Their position will be "the Holy Spirit inspired the Bible, end of story." Their view of "inspiration" leads them to believe that research and scholarship are not necessary for one to study or believe in the message of the Bible.
To question #2, there can be at least two perspectives. One would be that since the original authors of the Bible (not the manuscript writers or the translators) were divinely inspired (led by the Spirit), there is no possible way that the original documents could contain error of any kind. This perspective reflects a certain theological logic, i.e. an inerrant Spirit could not and would not produce an errant document to be established for faith and practice.
The other perspective relative to question #2 would be one of faith. It would be the type of faith that does not require concrete and tangible proof, but rather a faith that says "I don't know or understand it all, but I trust God." This type of faith does not require logic, though it does not rule logic out entirely. It also comes close to being a blind faith, because it does not require data in order for one to exercise it.
To question #3, the answer or answers can be complex. If our faith is based on the manuscripts and translations, as it certainly is, then we have to assume that the manuscripts and translations of our preferences most accurately reflect what the original document said. No one claim that their faith is based on what the original document said, because the original documents have disappeared and are no longer in existence. In essence, then, our faith and theology are based on manuscripts and translations which we prefer for whatever reason, and in some extreme cases, believing that the Holy Spirit has a special preference for those manuscripts and translations.
To question #4, we can only answer by establishing for ourselves and maybe others, what the priorities are for us. Will engaging in issues of inerrancy pay my mortgage/rent and other financial obligations? Will arguments, controversies, and debates about inerrancy address and alleviate the suffering that is going on in the world? Will the issue of inerrancy really result in an improvement in our spiritual journey and relationship with God? Are these issues really moot?
I now invite you to review these questions and share with us your perspectives. Tell us how important or non-important you think they are and why or why not? Feel free to express your own viewpoints and heart-felt feelings on these issues. Your input will contribute to a learning experience for all of us.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
No comments:
Post a Comment