Methodist Addresses Evangelical Scholars on Biblical Inerrancy

United Methodist theologian Ben Witherington of Asbury Seminary addressed the Evangelical Theological Society today on the issue of biblical inerrancy. This week over 2400 theologians and students attended the ETS annual meeting in Baltimore, whose theme was “Evangelicalism, Inerrancy, and the Evangelical Theological Society: Retrospect and Prospect.”

Overall, Witherington preferred calling the Bible “truthful” instead of inerrant because of frequent misunderstanding of inerrancy, although he did not object to inerrancy fully understood.

“God in his wisdom has…not dropped original golden tablets from the sky,” Witherington smilingly remarked, citing Joseph Smith’s claims about the Mormon revelation. He noted the Scriptures “we have today went through a messy process of assemblage,” and the “Church finally recognized the cannon under the guidance of Holy Spirit.” That “cannon did not misfire,” he said.

Witherington explained there was an inspired “spoken word of God before an enscriptured word,” and there was a “truthful God before the cannon.” The Scripture is truthful and trustworthy in all it intends to teach us.”

“What the text meant when original inspired authors thought or wrote it still has the same meaning today,” Witherington said. “It’s not up to us. We’re not the meaning makers. Our job is to discover the meaning.”

Insisting on an objective, historic meaning for Scripture “may not warm the hearts of post-modern, Gnostic readers,” Witherington admitted. “It may be unfashionable. I don’t care. We don’t need more narcissistic readings of Scripture.”

In a panel discussion with Witherington, Donald Carson of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School challenged some of Witherington’s discomfort with the term inerrancy, advocating a “rigorous and sophisticated understanding” of it, rooted in church fathers such as Jerome and Augustine. He noted that some who don’t like the term are still “supernaturalists” and “de facto they are functioning on the inerrancy side.”

Witherington responded that too often he doesn’t hear inerrancy presented with Carson’s sophistication. “I don’t object to the term of inerrancy,” Witherington stressed, saying he “happily” had signed faith statements at Asbury and Gordon Conwell Seminaries stipulating to it. “I prefer truth. This book tells us the truth.”

In a postmodern and “biblically illiterate age,” Witherington said there is widespread misunderstanding about the definition of “error,” which requires explanation and possible death by a “1000 qualifications.” So he prefers to speak of the Bible’s “truthfulness and trustworthiness.”

Wary of post modernity’s “radical subjectivity” and “denial of the importance of history,” Witherington said, “If Jesus did not rise from the dead on Easter Sunday morning then we should all go home.” Witherington emphasized that Scripture teaches theology, ethics and history, “interwoven” together, and readers “can’t parse them out.”

Preferring to speak of “defending the faith,” rather than defending the Bible, Witherington still affirmed the need for upholding the “truth claims of Scripture,” such as the “virginal birth” of Jesus’ mother. Understanding the historical context strengthens the truth claims, he said, pointing out that the Apostles knew their story was potentially problematic because it provoked “claims of illegitimacy” by skeptics, yet still they proclaimed its truth.

Witherington declared there is no disagreement between classic Wesleyans and Calvinists on biblical authority, recalling John Wesley insisted there were “no errors in Scripture.” Carson agreed, saying the “best of the Wesleyan heritage is inerrantist.” For further explanation of his own views, Witherington cited his 2009 book The Living Word of God: Rethinking the Theology of the Bible.