The Inerrancy Debate to End All Debates

by Rev. Dr. Bob Hunter

Inerrancy has been the subject of heated debates and intense discussions in the Church of the Nazarene for decades. Inerrancy is our kryptonite in some respects, because it weakens us by taking our focus off of the Bible’s true message. Persistent claims the Bible’s reputation for perfection must be defended are proof that segments of the General Church have not fully reckoned with Article IV of the Manual. This article’s ambitious title is probably out of touch with reality, but I’m going to take a stab at exploring how we might end this debate once and for all.

Before I suggest a way forward, let’s review how we got here.

Fueled by Twentieth-Century Modernism, biblical criticism emerged as a force to be reckoned with during the formative years of the Church of the Nazarene. Influenced by science, rationalism, and skepticism, a more critical approach to reading and interpreting scripture gained influence. Threatened by these developments, Christians countered with the “Battle for the Bible” movement. Defending the Bible seemed like the noble thing to do. Advancing the cause of fundamental Christian beliefs like the virgin birth, physical resurrection, and biblical inspiration were an attempt to counter modernism’s sweeping influence. Fundamentalists evolved over time and concern for biblical inerrancy became their signature issue. In 1978, over 200 evangelical leaders gathered to form the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy. Upholding traditional doctrinal tenants was never in question, but Nazarenes rejected the Chicago statement of Biblical Inerrancy. Consistently, Nazarenes have, throughout their history, maintained that matters of salvation, not factual details presented in the text, are what should receive our attention (27th General Assembly committee). The debate, however, is far from over and inerrancy proponents remain vocal.

In the chart below, I present an imperfect diagram of three views representing the Bible and inerrancy. There are more nuanced views not represented, but an overview of three main views might be helpful, I coined the phrase “New Inspiration” because I wanted to avoid controversial labels normally associated with Christians represented by this view.

The debate to end all debates concerning inerrancy in the Church of the Nazarene is built on one very simple prescription: Lean into our identity and embrace who we are! Seminal figures from within our faith tradition forged a glorious middle way on which we should travel and that wisdom remains. Endless debates surrounding total biblical inerrancy are unfruitful and unwise. The casualty of total biblical inerrancy is soteriology (and maybe Christology). The casualty suffered from new inspiration is orthodoxy. When we tip the quadrilateral scale in the direction of reason and experience at the expense of scripture and tradition, we risk orthodoxy. In both instances, something of value is lost. Functional inerrancy has served us well and will continue to serve us well should we decide to remain faithful to it. Embracing our identity as Nazarenes in the tradition of soteriological inerrancy brightens our future.

Of course, not many Nazarenes make outright claims of support for inerrancy or new inspiration, proponents insist they uphold soteriological inerrancy while quietly leaning one way or the other. It’s the subtle nuances that burden us. Language suggesting God does not err, God is in complete control, and our obedience to God’s word is paramount may imply total biblical inerrancy. Implied inerrancy is just as dangerous as actual inerrancy. The notion that God’s Word is full of mistakes because it was penned by flawed humans that consistently got it wrong by promoting patriarchy, sexism, and racism, may lead one to implicitly believe that even the message of salvation itself is on shaky ground.

The bottom line: Total biblical inerrancy should be abandoned once and for all, because it undermines Wesleyan soteriology. Additionally, Reformed perspectives that coincide with total biblical inerrancy gravely threaten our theological tradition. For those reasons and more we should nuke it for good. New inspiration has some coveted features, like constructive theology and evolving faith, but it has become increasingly apparent to this observer that few determined souls survive the rigorous methods of deconstruction inherent in those conversations.

Throwing the baby out with the bathwater comes to mind. Clearly, there are dangers on both sides of the road when either position is held too strongly. The whole issue of inerrancy is a burden too heavy to bear and new inspiration, exercised too strongly, has the potential of taking us on a faith shattering journey from which we may not return.

I suppose the Battle for the Bible will rage beyond this article, but it will have a kryptonite-like effect on us and weaken our ability to be holiness, Christian, and missional.

For further reading: