(In)errancy

There are a lot of places where North Park and I don't align. For the most part I'm fine with that. I've learned to pick my battles. I've learned about the correct arenas of those battles. I know that I'm not going to convince anyone in a classroom setting of my theological positions. I'm not worried about convincing people anymore, rather than an understanding of where I'm coming from, which usually means grabbing some coffee and sitting down for a patient conversation. And I've learned that blogging about something and thinking no one will ever read it is a false assumption to make. So I don't make that assumption anymore.

However, beyond our differences in theology-- my stance on women in ministry and my strongly held Calvinistic beliefs-- even the primacy with which I hold Scripture is dashed aside. When I talk about the Bible I use words like "inerrancy" and "infallibility." Language in these tones, however, never get used at North Park. Why would one refer to the Bible as inerrant? I thought we were so passed that.

Honestly I don't understand what people have to hold onto, if they don't affirm the inerrancy of Scripture. No, I'm not naive enough to say that there aren't inconsistencies and discrepancies between one book or another. Nor am I naive enough to say that stories and metaphors don't exist in the Bible. There are literary genres in Scripture. I also contend that Scripture is insufficient to describe the fullness of God's glory, but on this side of the mirror, this is as clear as we can see.

But more than all that, this is God's word. Are those who don't affirm the inerrancy of Scripture calling God errant? If we believe 2 Timothy 3:16, 17 that all Scripture is God-breathed, then what we today affirm as Scripture has come from the mouth of God, and unless one thinks that God makes mistakes, or errs, then I don't see how we can make the same claim on Scripture. But then again, 1 & 2 Timothy have authorship issues and who even gives a crap about what Paul says anyway. He wrote at a specific time to a specific people addressing a specific issue and we're not naive enough to think that this still applies to us today, do we?

What blows my mind is how the Covenant can use words like "perfect" to describe how the Scripture functions, but not affirm it's inerrancy. Who then decides what's errant or inerrant? How do we make these judgment calls? And then how do we explain to our flocks that this section of Scripture is right, but this stuff here is phooey, so don't believe that, cause that'd just be stupid. Do we ride the wave of culture to inform our consciences as to what is valid in God's word? I contend that is a dangerous wave to ride.

Are we really so bold before God to toss aside his word and tell the Creator that we're the ones that decide what is true or not?