Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, Part 1

BERJAYAA couple of weeks ago I posted an article I wrote entitled, Seriously, But Not Literally?. While the main point was not to defend the inerrancy of Scripture, I did very briefly mention it. One of the problems with using theological jargon is that, quite often, folks who aren’t “in the know” aren’t quite able to follow along because they haven’t been taught the lingo. Therefore, I thought it might be helpful to offer a few posts which explain what is and is notmeant by the term, “inerrancy,” when used by those who, in my humble estimation, are the most responsible adherents of that doctrine of Scripture.

Below is an introduction by the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, which met back in the 1970s to hammer out a clarifying statement on the inerrancy of Scripture. You may still decide that you think they are wrong and that you don’t buy into inerrancy. However, I hope you will have a better understanding of what folks who do embrace the doctrine mean when they use the term.

Background

The “Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy” was produced at an international Summit Conference of evangelical leaders, held at the Hyatt Regency O’Hare in Chicago in the fall of 1978. This congress was sponsored by the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy. The Chicago Statement was signed by nearly 300 noted evangelical scholars, including James Boice, Norman L. Geisler, John Gerstner, Carl F. H. Henry, Kenneth Kantzer, Harold Lindsell, John Warwick Montgomery, Roger Nicole, J. I. Packer, Robert Preus, Earl Radmacher, Francis Schaeffer, R. C. Sproul, and John Wenham.

The ICBI disbanded in 1988 after producing three major statements: one on biblical inerrancy in 1978, one on biblical hermeneutics in 1982, and one on biblical application in 1986. The following text, containing the “Preface” by the ICBI draft committee, plus the “Short Statement,” “Articles of Affirmation and Denial,” and an accompanying “Exposition,” was published in toto by Carl F. H. Henry in God, Revelation And Authority, vol. 4 (Waco, Tx.: Word Books, 1979), on pp. 211-219. The nineteen Articles of Affirmation and Denial, with a brief introduction, also appear in A General Introduction to the Bible, by Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix (Chicago: Moody Press, rev. 1986), at pp. 181-185. An official commentary on these articles was written by R. C. Sproul in Explaining Inerrancy: A Commentary (Oakland, Calif.: ICBI, 1980), and Norman Geisler edited the major addresses from the 1978 conference, in Inerrancy (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980).

Preface

The authority of Scripture is a key issue for the Christian church in this and every age. Those who profess faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior are called to show the reality of their discipleship by humbly and faithfully obeying God’s written Word. To stray from Scripture in faith or conduct is disloyalty to our Master. Recognition of the total truth and trustworthiness of Holy Scripture is essential to a full grasp and adequate confession of its authority.

The following Statement affirms this inerrancy of Scripture afresh, making clear our understanding of it and warning against its denial. We are persuaded that to deny it is to set aside the witness of Jesus Christ and of the Holy Spirit and to refuse that submission to the claims of God’s own Word which marks true Christian faith. We see it as our timely duty to make this affirmation in the face of current lapses from the truth of inerrancy among our fellow Christians and misunderstandings of this doctrine in the world at large.

This Statement consists of three parts: a Summary Statement, Articles of Affirmation and Denial, and an accompanying Exposition. It has been prepared in the course of a three-day consultation in Chicago. Those who have signed the Summary Statement and the Articles wish to affirm their own conviction as to the inerrancy of Scripture and to encourage and challenge one another and all Christians to growing appreciation and understanding of this doctrine. We acknowledge the limitations of a document prepared in a brief, intensive conference and do not propose that this Statement be given creedal weight. Yet we rejoice in the deepening of our own convictions through our discussions together, and we pray that the Statement we have signed may be used to the glory of our God toward a new reformation of the Church in its faith, life, and mission.

We offer this Statement in a spirit, not of contention, but of humility and love, which we purpose by God’s grace to maintain in any future dialogue arising out of what we have said. We gladly acknowledge that many who deny the inerrancy of Scripture do not display the consequences of this denial in the rest of their belief and behavior, and we are conscious that we who confess this doctrine often deny it in life by failing to bring our thoughts and deeds, our traditions and habits, into true subjection to the divine Word.

We invite response to this statement from any who see reason to amend its affirmations about Scripture by the light of Scripture itself, under whose infallible authority we stand as we speak. We claim no personal infallibility for the witness we bear, and for any help which enables us to strengthen this testimony to God’s Word we shall be grateful.

Thanks to Michael Marlowe for his helpful website that contains the whole statement as well as many other helpful tools for biblical research. Stay tuned for Part 2.

Grace and Truth,
Dale

Family Religion

BERJAYAFamily Religion

“May we not endeavor, Secondly, to instruct them? to take care that every person who is under our roof have all such knowledge as is necessary to salvation?…and you should take care that they have some time every day for reading, meditation, and prayer; and you should inquire whether they do actually employ that time in the exercises for which it is allowed. Neither should any day pass without family prayer, seriously and solemnly peformed.”

Sermon 94, On Family Religion Volume 7

If you feel bold, you can read all of Wesley’s sermon on “Family Religion” by clicking here.

Jesus on Discipleship

BERJAYAI know that virtually everything that came out of our Lord’s mouth was about discipleship. Just as you don’t have to read the word “trinity” in the Bible to know that the idea is well represented in its pages, neither do you have to “hear” Jesus using some form of the word “disciple” to know that the idea permeated everything he taught.

Having said that, I thought it still might be interesting to look up and share with you those places in the gospels where Jesus used the word.

Matthew 28:19 - Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

Luke 14:26-27 - ”If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters–yes, even his own life–he cannot be my disciple. [27] And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.

Luke 14:33 - In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple.

John 8:31 - To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples.

John 13:35 - By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

John 15:8 - This is to my Father’s glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples.

Now, here are a few of the “follow me” sorts of texts from Jesus that certainly communicate the idea of discipleship.

Matthew 4:19 - ”Come, follow me,” Jesus said, “and I will make you fishers of men.”

Matthew 8:22 - But Jesus told him, “Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead.”

Matthew 9:9 - As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collector’s booth. “Follow me,” he told him, and Matthew got up and followed him.

Matthew 10:38 - and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.

Matthew 16:24 - Then Jesus said to his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.

Matthew 19:21 - Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

Mark 8:34 - Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said: “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.

Luke 9:23 - Then he said to them all: “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.

Luke 14:27 - And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.

Luke 18:22 - When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

John 8:12 - When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”

John 10:27 - My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.

John 12:26 - Whoever serves me must follow me; and where I am, my servant also will be. My Father will honor the one who serves me.

Here are some of the texts in the gospels that relate to ”loving and obeying Jesus” as key to being his disciple.

Matthew 10:37 - ”Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me;

Matthew 28:20 - and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

Luke 6:46 - ”Why do you call me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say?

John 8:42 - Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me.

John 14:15 - ”If you love me, you will obey what I command.

John 14:21 - Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him.”

John 14:23-24 - Jesus replied, “If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. [24] He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.

John 15:9-10 - ”As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. [10] If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father’s commands and remain in his love.

John 15:12-14 - My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. [13] Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. [14] You are my friends if you do what I command.

Grace and Truth,
Dale

A Thought on the Gospel

BERJAYAI posted a beautiful statement (on my home-blog) of the Gospel of Jesus Christ that Christianity Today put out a little over a decade ago. It really is helpful and encouraging and I would encourage you to check it out.

One of the things that caught my eye was the very last affirmation and denial of the statement. I think you will agree that it flies in the face of much of what’s called evangelism today. What do you think?

Grace and Truth,
Dale

It says…

18. We affirm that Jesus Christ commands his followers to proclaim the Gospel to all living persons, evangelizing everyone everywhere, and discipling believers within the fellowship of the church. A full and faithful witness to Christ includes the witness of personal testimony, godly living, and acts of mercy and charity to our neighbor, without which the preaching of the Gospel appears barren.

We deny that the witness of personal testimony, godly living, and acts of mercy and charity to our neighbors constitutes evangelism apart from the proclamation of the Gospel.

 

It’s the Doctrine Stupid

BERJAYARight away, let me ask you to forgive me for using the word “stupid” in the title to this post. My wife and I teach our kids never to use the word “stupid.” In this case I was just trying to be clever by using a phrase that was similar to one used in a presidential campaign not too long ago.

When I took my first church after seminary (back in June 1992), I remember how popular the church growth movement was. I remember many of my United Methodist colleagues going to the latest and greatest conferences and seminars and buying the most current and “relevant” books that would solve all of our membership woes. And yet, what seemed so glaring to me, even then, was that everything seemed to revolve around new and improved programs and strategies. What I kept saying to myself was, “Don’t they understand that all these mega-churches they are seeking to imitate have core doctrines that they actually believe in and teach to their people.”

It seems that not very much has changed in the 19 years that I’ve been serving in the local church. My beloved UMC is still working through a “new and improved paradigm and program” every two years or so.

What’s so frustrating is that we have such wonderful, life-transforming core doctrines as well. However, it appears that our denomination still seems more enamored with fruit…but not so much the root. We want inclusion, mercy to the last, least and the lost, everyone in service, etc., and yet it seems that we’re undermining the very means by which all of those issues (and far more) will ever come to pass.

When I read about Scriptural Holiness, I read about inward transformation happening first before societal transformation can occur. Being must precede doing. Beliefs effects behavior. Confession, creed, and character shape our conduct. We ignore doctrine to our peril. Mack Stokes wrote,

“…for Wesley, scriptural holiness was seen as “inward holiness” produced by the supernatural pardoning and re-creating power of God through Christ, which impels us into “outward holiness.” The tree, being made good, bears good fruit.”

Doctrine really does matter. It shapes and forms who we are and helps us to understand whose we are. It’s with that foundation that we’re able to go out into all the world and make disciples of Jesus Christ and extend his Kingdom into every sphere of life. But we must first be genuine disciples of Jesus Christ (new creatures in Christ) who have had our hearts changed and who submit to his Lordship. If we aren’t, then all we will be are Pharisaical workers who will be destined to burnout and crash because, like a branch cut from the vine, there will be no life-giving nutrients and power running in and through us. If we would bear much, good, and lasting fruit, then we must abide in Christ and he must abide in us.

Grace and Truth,
Dale

Still Dreaming

BERJAYAby Mike Hudson

“I have a dream today.”  Those words are owned forever by Martin Luther King, Jr.  “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” 

I couldn’t help but recall these words as I sat at Annual Conference this year.  Our main task was to elect clergy and lay delegates to our General Conference next year.  Three and half days were spent voting to fill our slate of delegates.  It wasn’t the time it took to complete the task that wore me out.  It was the unintended racism that pervaded the process.

From the outset we were encouraged from the podium to think about skin color when voting.  Prayers were offered before each vote asking God to move on the hearts of the voters to look not at the character of the candidates, what they believed or their experience, but at their ethnicity.  Before and after each vote a slide was displayed on the main screen showing the demographics of the elected delegates based on their ethnicity, gender and age.  The message was more than subtle.  “Don’t vote for white people.” 

All of this is done in the name of diversity and inclusivity, but it does not make BERJAYADr. King’s dream a reality.  If voting against someone because of their ethnicity is racism, isn’t voting for someone based on the color of their skin racist as well?  It is a false assumption made by many that minorities cannot be racists because they do not hold power.  They say only those in power can be racists.  Therefore discounting a person because they are white is not racist.  This in itself is a power play that has been very effective throughout our society.  It’s called the race card and when it is played walls go up among people. It is meant to shut down debate and exclude those who are white.

My frustration grew each time a conference member would stand before a microphone and encourage the conference to vote by saying, “I’ve noticed that there are no African-American women elected.”  My heart broke as the younger generation would stand and echo that, they too, could only see skin color when they looked at the delegates. 

Racism is a sin.  It is a sin that, quite frankly, is color blind.  It does not matter what your ethnicity is, anyone can harbor this sin in their hearts.  The racial landscape in our country has shifted quite a bit since Dr. King vocalized his dream.  The most telling shift is that a black family lives in the White House. Can we recognize that it is not 1965 anymore?

Focusing on skin color and ethnicity in any kind of election in the name of inclusivity is not a cure for the sin of racism.  It only creates more barriers among people.  It sets up walls of hostility as people are chosen not because of their character, values, wisdom, or experience but because of the color of their skin.  It teaches younger generations by praxis that skin color still matters.  And perhaps it matters the most. 

I can understand this behavior in the world but not in the church where, as Paul writes in Colossians 3:11, “Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.”  In Christ demographics no longer matter.  In Christ we no longer look at people according to skin color.  In Christ we give up our ethnicity because Christ is our all. 

Jesus is how we identify ourselves.  If we are to be labeled, let it be with His name and no other.  Our life (our ethnicity, gender, and everything else) is to be hidden with Christ in God.  When our life is hidden in Christ, then we can no longer see the color of a person’s skin.  It is hidden  (Col 3:1-4)! It is no accident that Paul writes that our lives are hidden in Christ before he writes v.11.  There is no way to get to v.11 in our lives or the church unless we are hidden in Christ first.

We must all drop our demographics when looking at each other.  Christ is our life.  The cure for racism is not counting people and apportioning positions based on skin color.  It is having Jesus be our identity.  We must stop focusing on skin color and set our hearts and minds on things above where Christ is seated.

It appears that as long as we continue to look at skin color then we have not put to death the old self with its practices.  And that means we cannot put on the new self which is being renewed in the image of its Creator (Col 3:9-10).  That image is Jesus no matter what your ethnicity is.

A.W. Tozer said that 100 pianos tuned to the same fork are tuned to each other.  Our focus and call is to tune our lives to Christ and when we do we will find that race will not be a factor in anything.  The time is now for the church to wake up and set a new course for race relations.  A course that does not imitate the world, but is a witness to the world of the transforming power of Jesus Christ.  It can happen when each man and woman, black, white, brown, and purple with pink polka dots tunes their life to Jesus.  When He alone is our focus then we can become like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and purpose.

May God speed the day when this is no longer a dream.

Seriously, But Not Literally?

BERJAYAby Dale Tedder

What is the United Methodist view of Scripture? Is there an official view? I know what the Discipline says, but how much latitude do we allow, one way or the other, before we say a particular view is out-of-bounds? Those are some of the questions that we as a denomination have been wrestling with for quite a while now.

 I bring this up because recently, at Annual Conference earlier this month, I heard the same phrase used twice that got my attention. That phrase was, “We take the Bible seriously, but not literally.”

 “Seriously, but not literally.” What does that even mean? Does that strike you as nonsense? What does it mean to take the Bible literally?

 As a member of the theology team of the Board of Ordained Ministry in my conference, I have been a part of many meaningful conversations about a candidate’s view of Scripture. However, my observation is that, in some instances, mentioning that a candidate takes the Bible literally is shorthand for saying that that person takes the Bible a little too seriously.

 Yet, from everything I’ve read on the subject, taking the Bible literally means, quite simply, reading the Bible according to the literature-style in which it was written. We know that there are many kinds of literature in the Bible. There is gospel, epistle, poetry, apocalyptic, wisdom, historical narrative, hymns, etc. They are not all to be read in the very same way. That would be folly. Furthermore, I have yet to read someone who holds a high view of Scripture who believes that the Bible should be read in such a way.

 Many of the folks that I’ve talked to about the issue of inerrancy, for example, have never read a single book by an inerrantist on the subject of inerrancy. Instead, it seems that many critics of inerrancy are often reacting to the very worst caricatures that have been built into conference folklore over the years. And frankly, who would want one of those caricatures to come to life and serve a church in our conference? Not me!

 I’m not saying that views against inerrancy are completely unjustified. I am saying that few people in UM circles have read much on the subject and thus have the worst possible view of it. That doesn’t strike me as very open-minded, something on which we United Methodists pride ourselves.

 I would like to see an end to the negative stereotypes of folks who hold a high view of Scripture.

 I would like someone to tell me how the Bible is to be taken seriously, but not literally (as I’ve explained the word, “literally.”).

 I would like to hold a high view of Scripture without being accused of bibliolatry (the view that the Bible, and not God, is being worshiped).

 Let me be clear: I’m not defending any bad interpretation that has come along in the name of Scriptural authority. Both sides of the debate have clearly misused and even abused the Bible. What I am for is a holy and reasonable discussion, free of character assassinations and straw men (or straw persons, if you prefer).

 Let’s roll up our sleeves together and do the hard and responsible work of rightly interpreting the Bible, all the while, maintaining a grateful, joyful, and humble attitude toward  the Bible’s inspiration, authority, and sufficiency in our lives. We won’t always agree, but we can still disagree with integrity. Text management (i.e., “I like this verse, so it’s authoritative for me; I don’t like that one, so it’s not.”) is not the mature, wise, or godly way to go about it.

 Our denomination will not, in my opinion, thrive without truly taking the Bible seriously.

 Grace and Truth,
Dale