Historically speaking, the question of whether or not inerrancy matters has been a significant one for the SBC. Unless the reader is new to the SBC, he or she will be aware that this very issue was pivotal in the battle for control of the convention in the last quarter of the twentieth century. While there were many other issues involved, and while there are exceptions to the following statement, those in the conservative and moderate camps (in the battle for the convention) can be generally classified as those who arrive at different answers to the inerrancy question. Conservative leaders strategically lighted upon the inerrancy issue, speaking and writing about its importance to lay Southern Baptists. This issue, perhaps more than any other, awakened a grassroots movement among Southern Baptists; Baptists began to show up in greater numbers at the annual convention, casting their votes for SBC presidential candidates who believed the Bible was the inerrant Word of God. If the reader will allow this grossly over-simplified historical retelling to continue, the plan among conservatives was that the newly elected conservative (and inerrantist) SBC president would make appointments which would lead over time to theological change at the level of our denominational entities (particularly at the six Southern Baptist seminaries). As history has demonstrated, this plan to recover our historical, biblical roots and preserve our convention’s theological heritage worked. All six Southern Baptist seminaries now teach their students that the Bible is inerrant and are sending out pastors, church leaders, and missionaries who are conveying that message to the people with whom they serve. Sadly, this could not have been said of all six seminaries in the years before the “Conservative Resurgence” took place. Of course, those on different sides of this issue have different feelings about this change in the convention. While some approvingly refer to this time in SBC history as the “Conservative Resurgence,” others, with a note of mournful disappointment, call it the “Fundamentalist Takeover.” [Just so there is no confusion, this author calls it the “Conservative Resurgence,” thinks the question of inerrancy is, to borrow from Judge Pressler, “A Hill on Which to Die,” and is eternally grateful to those who fought to keep our denomination from taking the path of theological liberalism tread by so many others]. No matter your position, what has taken place in our convention is a matter of historical record. Those interested in learning more about the “Conservative Resurgence” can do so by reading any number of books on the subject (see below for a few examples).
This way of understanding the question “Does Inerrancy Matter?” isn’t actually the point of this post. This post is not written with the goal of convincing non-inerrantists to switch camps and take an inerrantist position “because inerrancy matters.” I am writing to conservatives. I am writing to those who would affirm the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. I am writing to those who would say wholeheartedly “Inerrancy does matter!” And I am asking you the question, “Do you live like it matters?” I am convinced that if it really did matter to us like we say it does, we would do some things differently. I am convinced that we as Southern Baptists are not living, teaching, preaching, and worshipping like inerrancy matters to us.
Let me mention three key areas where I think we can do a better job of demonstrating that inerrancy matters to us and is indeed “A Hill on Which to Die”:
(1) Personal Bible Reading—We say we have a perfect Bible, with God as its ultimate author, and yet the number of those in our convention who have actually taken the time to read this perfect Bible in its entirety is relatively few. Does this fact jive with our belief in inerrancy? If it’s not perfect, maybe there are some parts we should skip? But if it’s perfect, and if 2 Timothy 3:16 is true and every single piece of Scripture is beneficial for us, then how can we not read it all? Yet many who take an inerrantist position on Scripture have read each volume of the Lord of the Rings trilogy many times over but have never taken the time to read through the Bible even once. While our copies of Harry Potter have well-worn pages with tattered edges, our Bibles are in mint condition from want of use. Which book on our shelves does this practice suggest is the perfect one?
(2) Scripture Memory—The Bible we believe is perfect is filled with commands to hide God’s Word in our hearts. Even apart from such commands, since we believe that every verse in Scripture is intended for our spiritual well-being why would we not want to have as much of the Word as possible memorized? Yet I fear that accurate statistics on scripture memorization in the SBC would be even more alarming than statistics on Bible reading. Pastors, try this out in your next worship service. Ask every person in the congregation to rise. Then ask them to sit down if they cannot quote one verse (with its reference) for every year they have been a Christian. See how many you have left standing. Most likely, you will only have a handful for every hundred believers in your church. What does this say about how important we think our perfect Bibles are? Apparently we believe that since the Bible is perfect, it is perfect-ly fine for us to look up every verse we need when we need it.
(3) Preaching—How can a Southern Baptist congregation, that presumably believes in a perfect Bible, tolerate a sermon which barely mentions the Bible? I have heard, and heard of, Southern Baptist preachers constructing entire messages around the latest Christian book they’ve read or the latest forwarded email they received in their inbox. How did we as a convention get to a point where, in any of our churches, such behavior passes as “preaching” in any sense of the word? Preaching, as understood in Scripture, takes the Word as its subject matter. “Preachers” are tasked with explaining the meaning of Scripture so that their hearers can apply the Word to their lives (e.g. Neh 8:8). While this task of “explaining” will include the appropriate use of illustrative material, the subject matter of the sermon is never in doubt—it is the Word of God. Preaching anything but the Bible expresses either the height of arrogance (“I have something more valuable to say that what God has said”) or laziness (“It is easier to read this email and talk about it than to actually study the Scripture and find out what it says”). While this is a topic too large to expound fully at the close of this post, I would submit to you that expository preaching best matches a stated belief in the inerrancy of Scripture. The preacher who delivers an expository sermon in effect says to his hearers, “We have been given a perfect Bible. I don’t need to add anything to it; I just need to explain it. I will let the God-given text of Scripture determine my main point and my preaching outline (my supporting points). Why would I think I can organize this material any better than God and try to preach this passage some other way?” Sadly, while many in our denomination label themselves “expositors” their preaching could not be called “expository” by any conceivable definition. It is not enough to call yourself an “expositor;” you must actually “exposit” (uncover, lay bear) the text during your message to merit that self-designation. [For more on the connection between inerrancy and expository preaching, consider: John MacArthur, Jr., “The Mandate of Biblical Inerrancy: Expository Preaching,” in Rediscovering Expository Preaching, John MacArthur, Jr., ed. (Dallas: Word, 1992): 22-35.]
The battle our theological fathers fought for inerrancy was a difficult one. We should not give away the fruit of their victory so easily. We should continue to fight for inerrancy, because it really does matter—without a perfect Bible, we have an unsure epistemological foundation for our faith. But we must also live as if inerrancy matters. We must live under the realization that because the Bible is the inerrant Word of God it has absolute authority over our behavior as individuals, families, and churches. God has spoken to us and we are to listen and obey. We should read the Word, memorize the Word, and preach the Word as if we believe we have a perfect Word from the Lord—because we do!
–Scott S. Wilson
Recommended Resources on the Conservative Resurgence in the SBC:
Please do not take what I am about to say the wrong way… I am as conservative as they come.
What use is saying I believe in the “Inerrancy of the Scriptures” without actually submitting to the Sufficiency of the Scriptures?
When the convention passed their latest resolution condemning the drinking of a glass of wine at your daughters wedding… quickly followed by many in the current SBC Leadership writing article after article defending this Extra/Un-Scriptural resolution by stating “We know the Bible does not forbid the drinking of wine, BUT ____ (insert any number of reasons)… One need not be a prophet to see that the SBC may pay lip service to the words “Inerrancy of the Bible”, but they really do not believe in the Sufficiency of the Bible at all.
And until you accept the Sufficiency (that’s code for Authority) of the Bible, then saying it is Inerrant is really quite meaningless.
Good words, Scott. I agree with you about biblical inerrancy. I also agree with Greg about the sufficiency of the Scriptures. It seems to me that many say they believe the Bible is the Word of God…they say they believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, however, they do not apply the principles of God’s inerrant Word to their lives. What good is it to agree with the inerrancy of the Bible but not apply it? Not much.
Scott, right on. You hit the nail on the head.
Nicely done Scott. Of course the sufficiency of the Scripture matters as well! I think we would agree that sufficiency and inerrancy must be linked. None of the evangelism vs discipleship, national vs international missions, Sunday school vs small group, and other dichotomies we tend to make should enter these discussions. I agree we must consider seriously the sufficiency of Scripture, but not without establishing a bold conviction concerning its inerrancy. I would also agree that one cannot call himself an inerrantist (or a “sufficientist”) truly and ignore obvious dictates of the Word, such as the Great Commission!
You cannot bveilee in what you are ignorant of, and we require salvation to be communicated to us in an authoritative, inerrant, and clear manner; therefore, Scripture is necessary to know the gospel. YES! Exactly. This highlights one of my primary frustrations with theological pursuits and that is that they are, for the most part, created in an echo chamber of like minded people for the consumption of like minded people. In short, for theologist and not the general population. That’s not to say that theological pursuits aren’t worthy. In fact, they are required because without those that understand higher math we’ll eventually all degrade to counting with sticks. The point is that sometimes, many times, we forget who the audience is and that’s when we start to have issues. If you’re teaching calculus to grade schoolers you’re wasting your time. In our Sunday school classes for children we break things down to the simplest concepts possible but in our adult classes we too often forget that not everyone has been to grade school. We revel in the beauty of scripture in near ogasmic pleasure while those without training sometimes without faith are left wandering lost until they decide that this whole church thing just isn’t for them. We always, always, always must remain precise and exacting in teaching scripture but we should remember that clarity is also one of the three requirements for understanding. Just to snatch a random word from this article, Doctrine . We know what it means but does the average person know? How often do we use the word doctrine in everyday conversation? How often does the mailman? The grocery store clerk? The word, in most uses is authoritative . It is inerrant in meaning. Is it clear? What happens to those folks when I use the word? Will they ask for clarity or just nod along and pretend to understand?My thought is that rather than teaching scripture we need to teach the meaning of scripture. We need to teach an understanding of scripture. Perhaps that’s the same thing. Perhaps not. We must always be careful of this even with simple words. What does grace mean? Ask (nearly) anyone what Gods Grace means and they’ll tell you that it means that He’s nice. If they don’t do that then they’ll chatter off some by-rote memorization of the definition learned in Sunday school with no obvious understanding of the meaning.We’ve discussed this before in the difference between saying grace and saying a blessing at mealtimes. If I ask someone to provide one or the other, I expect the result to be different. Very different. You’re well aware that this is rarely the case. That means that, to most, I need to explain what grace is do we? Maybe in one Sunday school class every couple of years? What happens if I missed that week? Or that month? Or that decade?When sharing scripture we must remember to teach to the level of the user. We must remember that in order to teach scripture we must first understand the person that we’re trying to teach. Not based on age or social standing or any other standard but based on their most basic understanding of scripture. Most of all though, we must not teach or allow to be taught faulty understanding. Must is a good word to use there. It is authoritative, inerrant, and clear. Scripture demands it.