Why I don't like the word "inerrant"

There has been much discussion on some of the blogs I read lately about why some Christians refuse to use the word "inerrant" to describe their belief in the authority of the Bible. So, I felt the need to weigh in and describe why I don't like the word. First off, before anyone thinks I am a "liberal" (whatever that means), I concede that I believe the Bible is inerrant when people ask about it. I know that what most people mean is "do you believe the Bible is TRUE?". So, yes, I believe the Bible is 100% True, no question about it. The problem, for me, is that in scholarly circles, "inerrant" needs so many qualifiers it no longer means anything. I use it, because that is the currency in today's world. But I don't like it. I feel I am slightly deceptive when I say it, because it would require so much explanation. There are, shall we say, "inconsistencies" in the Bible that make me uncomfortable with the word inerrant, like differences in the parallel history accounts of Kings and Chronicles in the OT. And what about the Gospels? John says the crucifixion was on Thursday, and the Synoptics say it was on Friday. I learned THAT information in an undergraduate class at a Southern Baptist university. Now, is this strictly an "error"? Well, no. I think John places the crufixion there on purpose, to match with the slaughter of the passover lambs. Very poetic, very beautiful...but Jesus could not have been crucified at both times, could He? The various scholarly definitions of inerrancy make allowances for this kind of thing, and also for describing scientific things somewhat primitively. My problem is that this does not seem to match what most non-Christian, non-scholar folks would consider "inerrant". The world is watching, people. They know our arguments, because we have them publicly and loudly. They know we use the word inerrant. If you use that word, and then qualify it to death, the modern person will simply laugh at you. Now, most people do not analyze to this extent before coming to Christ...but some do. C.S. Lewis, Lee Stroebel, and people like them make academic journeys to Christianity. Even if they are in the minority, shouldn't we make it easier for folks like them by using a word that more clearly represents what we mean to the modern ear? "Infallible" is very nearly synonymous with what we mean when we say inerrant. So is the simple word "True". How about "God-breathed, and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness"? What about just saying what the Bible says about itself? That is what I went with before I went to college and learned "inerrant" and "infallible" and all such scholarly terms. You know what? I found Jesus without them. Imagine that.

Sacraments and ordinances and the divisions we make

I am a Baptist, officially. I wish I could be all at once, like the title of my blog, but I am actually a Baptist. My fellow Baptists would say that Baptism is only by immersion, and should be administered to a believer. Anything that is not immersion should not be considered Baptism, according to the official Baptist position. My Baptist church also celebrates the Lord's Supper. We have it once a month, and it involves tasteless little wafers of "bread" and grape juice. Now, we come to my problem. I overheard my pastor say that he knew other churches used "real" bread, and that he thought that might be theologically suspect. Hmmm, OK. In the same conversation, he also spoke in a disaproving way about using "real" wine in the Lord's Supper. Does it seem to anyone else that we are being just a tad inconsistent? We insist on the scriptural mode of Baptism to the point of not allowing missionaries to serve who have not been Baptized correctly. We further regard it to be more "scriptural" to use unleavened, unflavored bread in communion, and then use grape juice instead of wine, but that is perfectly OK. In fact, it is better. What is even more interesting is that, theologically, Baptists consider both of these practices "ordinances", and mostly symbolic. That, it could be argued, is a lower view than some other faith traditions hold.

So, if it is just a symbol, what are we getting so worked up over? If it is an outward symbol of what happens in the heart, isn't it the heart of the person that matters? Now, before I am attacked by any fellow Baptists, I believe strongly in believer's baptism only; it is one of the few truly important reasons I am not actully a Methodist, though I love my Methodist brothers dearly. That said, does mode really matter? Sprinkling and pouring as modes of Baptism were begun because of the intense persecution of Christians in the Roman empire. They were literally underground, and had no access to bodies of water large enough to baptize in. Are we really saying they were wrong? If the baptism is mostly concerned with the heart, why does the outward symbol matter? The Lord's Supper is the same way. If it is about remembering Christ in our heart, why does in matter if it is actually unleavened bread? We obviously don't think it matters if it is really wine. Here's the bottom line: if the specifics of doing it just like the first century really matter, then we should be consistent, grow up, and use real wine. If we are not prepared to do that, then in the name of consistency we should validate other modes of baptism and use tasty bread if we want to.

It may seem like I am being really picky here, but churches have divided over these issues. We remain seperated over these issues. And finally, consistency is required for credibility. That is something we sorely need. People can respect you and listen to you, even if they don't agree at first, if you are consistent in your principles. I am afraid that at some point the gospel may get lost in all the noise about baptism and communion. In some places, it probably already has.

Until next time,

Tim Cook

William Booth and Larry Norman- Cutting Edge Theology

William Booth in 1865 : "Why should the devil have all the best tunes?"
"Secular music, do you say, belongs to the devil? Does it? Well, if it did I would plunder him for it, for he has no right to a single note of the whole seven. ... Every note, and every strain, and every harmony is divine. ... Offer them to God, and use them to make all the hearts about you merry before the Lord."

Larry Norman in 1977 :
"I know what's right, I know what's wrong and I don't confuse it.
Why should the devil have all the good music?
I feel good every day
'Cause Jesus is the Rock and He rolled my blues away"

Can you believe there are still people who disagree? Oh well, God love them. Praise God for men like this and the music they brought to the church.

John Wesley is my hero

Can a Baptist be Wesleyan? Is it allowed? If so, then sign me up. When I graduated from college, my parents got me the first three volumes of John Wesley's sermons as a gift. Wow. Absolutely incredible. Even in writing, the words on the page jump out and give me that excited feeling in my stomach. What a thing it must have been to hear this man preach! Now, I am well aware of the resurgence of Calvinist theology in the SBC today, and despite how "cool" it is in a revolutionary way to declare oneself a 5-pointer, I have to confess that I am probably at least as Arminian as Wesley (although, as I am about to describe, I don't think the difference is really that great). I came across a passage in one of the sermons that reminded me in a very striking way of the way many Baptists describe eternal security. I did not expect this wording to be found in Wesley, from what I had been led to believe, so I was understandably intrigued. This is what it said:

"Do not think one can say, 'Once, I was justified and my sins were forgiven.' I cannot know that with certitude. I will not dispute whether your sins were once forgiven. Perhaps at this distance of time, it is next to impossible to know with any tolerable degree of confidence if you experienced a true, genuine, work of God or whether you only decieved yourself. However, I do know with the greatest degree of certainty that 'Everyone who continues to commit sin is a child of the devil.'" (sermon #8, "The First-fruits of the Spirit", emphasis mine)

Now, concerning eternal security, the question that always comes up is "what about so-and-so who walked the isle when they were 5 and now is living in sin and hasn't darkened the door of the church in years?". I think the proper response, the one I have heard from many Baptists, is also Wesley's response: that this person has decieved themselves, and they didn't really mean it in the first place. Also, I must confess that I have a problem with the application of the doctrine of eternal security. I believe it, so far as I am concerned, but that is so rarely what we are talking about when we discuss it; it is almost always discussed in the context of someone else's walk with Christ. On what is in another person's heart, I must confess ignorance. Only God, in His infinite wisdom, is qualified to comment on that. I have known people who publicly confessed Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior who, because of what is going on in their life now, I am persuaded I must treat as though they were lost. Does this mean they lost their salvation? Did they ever have it? Well, that is a difficult question to answer. From their perspective, they may have been sincere when they confessed and believed the first time. I think, according to the scripture, that they never were "saved" in a proper sense, becuase "those who endure to the end will be saved". If this is true, though, are any of us really saved until we have made it to the end and stood before God? Is it ever proper to say "I got saved", or is it better to say "I am being saved"? Those who do in fact endure to the end can say truthfully that they were saved in their first experience with Christ, and even that they were predestined. Those that do not endure to the end were never saved, for "if they had been part of us, they would not have gone out from us".

In any case, it is clear to me that Wesley did not believe that one could sin his way out of heaven by the normal failings of a life in Christ. No, a person cast doubt on their salvation (as in, whether it was ever genuine) by returning to a life of total sin. I have heard stories of churches that advocate being re-saved every time you sin; that is no way to live a life of freedom in Christ. However, arguing over whether someone "lost" their salvation, or whether they "decieved themselves", which is what the arguement over eternal security usually involves, seems rather pointless to me. After all, we are argueing about what a person's previous condition might have been, which we cannot know if we cannot judge the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. The point is this: Arminians and Calvinists both know who is with them and who is not, and that is all we need to know to function in the Body until the Lord comes. At that time, everyone's eternal condition will be painfuly and obviously clear. Speaking of which, aren't there some lost out there in need of the gospel? Shall we cooperate and give them the good news?

What is a Methobapticostal anyway?

What is a Methobapticostal? Let me tell you a bit about myself, and then maybe you will understand. I was born into a family of American Baptists in Kansas, and when I was still in grade school we moved to Oklahoma and we settled into a non-denominational church which, we discovered, had decidedly Pentecostal leanings. That church became a precious, loving home for our family. We relocated for 2 years to another city, where we were members of a Southern Baptist Church. Once there I made many friends, and also learned that everything I had been taught about the gifts of the Spirit was wrong. 2 years later we moved back to our previous location, and settled comfortably back in to the Pentecostal/non-denominational lifestyle. By this time, I was in high school, and though I was pretty confused theologically, I had a hunger to find out if what I was being taught was right. I was driven to understand the scripture and to serve God with my musical talents and teaching. I became active in the Baptist youth group in town with some of my friends. I went to Junior College in my hometown for music, and was both president of the Baptist Collegiate Minstry and intern at the Wesley Foundation on campus at different times. I served with Baptists and Anglicans and Catholics and Methodists in spreading the gospel on campus. As I was preparing to graduate from there, I was distressed to discover that the general consensus was this: to go to a Bible college and have a real shot at ministry full-time, I should settle on a denominational home. I settled on Southern Baptist for primarily two reasons: my fiance was Southern Baptist (and her parents didn't like that I wasn't), and because the good professor at OBU (Oklahoma Baptist University) told me to pray and ask God where I should go to college, and whether that turned out to be OBU or not, he was sure God would bless me. That simple faith-filled sentiment sold me on that school and that faculty. I have rarely been more happy with a choice I have made. I now work full-time in a Southern Baptist church.

So what does that have to do with anything? This: after experiencing many different denominational frameworks and contexts, I am convinced of a few things. First, I don't like division in the body of Christ. Second, I don't fit perfectly into any preconceived mold of Christianity. I am a moderate Baptist, a conservative Methodist, and a non-tongue-speaking Pentecostal. If there is anyone who doesn't mind sharing the body of Christ with such an out-of-place individual, then they are welcome here.