Having just come from the annual Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) conference, I want to propose something for discussion concerning the doctrinal statement currently ascribed to by ETS. Whether you are familiar with ETS or not, this conversation will be beneficial to you, especially my students.

First, I want to make clear that I hold to inerrancy. I sign with good conscience the ETS doctrinal statement which is founded upon a confession of inerrancy. I have written on this issue here on this blog and defended what I call “reasoned inerrancy” as a hermeneutical motif for Christian hermeneutics. Therefore, this is not a post about any problem that I have with the doctrine itself.

Second, I want to make it clear that this is not a formal proposal of any sort. Although I am a voting member of ETS, I do not have any aspirations right now of taking this any further than this blog discussion.

Having been involved in ETS for the last eight years, I have come to appreciate what it is about. At least what I think its original and abiding intent is.

From the ETS website:

“Founded in 1949, the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) is a group of scholars, teachers, pastors, students, and others dedicated to the oral exchange and written expression of theological thought and research.”

“Oral exchange and written expression of theological though and research.” What this means is that ETS, while decidedly Evangelical, desires to provide a forum where Christian scholars can exchange research for peer review. ETS is not an official Evangelical magisterium in any sense, and it should never be seen as such. It is simply a place to “do” Evangelical scholarship.

I believe this is good and necessary. In fact, I don’t think Evangelical scholars should be involved in popular scholarship, presenting new ideas and influencing others, without being involved in this type of fellowship. Why? Because such forums allow critique and a public square, seeking influence and feedback from peers. In other words, those who avoid such peer review don’t need to be gaining friends and influencing people for their absence begs the question of their scholarship! While such accountability is not nor will ever be above criticism (as it is not perfect—what accountability is?), it is needed nonetheless. It does not have to be ETS, but ETS is an example of such a need in the church.

Starting in 1949 with a small meeting of sixty Evangelical scholars, as of 2005 the ETS membership has grown to more than 4,200.

The ETS doctrinal statement

The society’s purpose gives grounding to a intentionally broad doctrinal statement. From the ETS website about its founding: “While denominational loyalties and doctrinal orientations were widely divergent, there was no disposition whatever to compromise on the one matter which all delegates considered of supreme importance, the inerrancy of the Scriptures.”

The idea here is to be broadly Evangelical. This way, whatever denomination you are from, whatever your view on baptism, whatever your liturgy, whatever your view on predestination, you can find engagement here among those who were bound by one “fundamental”: the inerrancy of Scripture. It is assumed that if society members held such a view of Scripture, they could not verge far off the beaten path. As few anchors as possible creates a stable center of unity and diversity among its scholars. The society chose to have a “doctrinal basis” rather than a doctrinal statement or an extensive confession of faith.

Therefore, the initial doctrinal statement was conceived as such:

“The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs.”

Some may argue that this stabilizing anchor should not be one of bibliology, but Christology, since Christ, not the Scripture, is the ultimate fundamental to Christianity. While this is true and I am sure society members would concede Christ as the ultimate center, a mere confession of a unified Christology would not go far in anchoring this type of forum since Christ himself is not an authoritative source document from which one can be critiqued. Another more technical way to put it is that Christ is the formal cause of Christianity while the Scriptures are the material source. Therefore, society members rightly, in my opinion, chose to ground their doctrinal statement in bibliology. With this, one can more objectively critique another’s understanding and interpretation of the Scriptures. Let me be clear once again. I agree that the anchor for this type of society should be in bibliology, not Christology.

Understandably, the society has had it members that don’t represent the best of Evangelicalism and, doctrinally speaking, don’t fit the historic definition of what it means to be Evangelical. When non-Trinitarians began to become a part of the society, ETS voted to amend its doctrinal statement to include a firm adherence to the doctrine of the Trinity in the nineties. In this way, they narrowed the discussion, but believed that such a move was necessary and justified in order to remain truly “Evangelical.”

Recent events have also fueled the discussion causing many members to fear the society’s ability to remain “Evangelical” with such a limited doctrinal foundation. Open Theism, a belief that God is limited by time and in knowledge, bought about the excusing of Clark Pinnock from the Society in 2003. This was based on a “technicality” without having to expand the doctrinal basis. The proposal was that Pinnock, and some other Open Theists, were denying inerrancy by saying that God can get the future wrong.

Last year Francis Beckwith, then the president of ETS, announced that he was converting to Catholicism. The storm caused by this event brought forward more proposals for amending and extending the doctrinal statement. This is especially the case since Beckwith said that he would have no trouble signing the statement in its current form, even as a Roman Catholic.

It was recently proposed by some society members to extend the doctrinal basis to mirror a more Evangelical stance on many theological issues including God’s sovereignty, the sinfulness of humanity, the work of the Holy Spirit, the nature of the Church, salvation by faith alone, and Christ’s future coming. These proposed amendments go well beyond its original basis in bibliology.

However, as much as I understand and respect where such thoughts come from, I am not for such an amendment. I believe in doctrinal statements and detailed statements of faith in many forums, but not this one. To draw the doctrinal circle so tightly would, in my thinking, amount to an exercise in the confirmation of prejudice that does not promote the “iron-sharpening-iron” philosophy that ETS originally intended. Yes, there would be less risk and the challenges from “outsiders” would be less radical, but this type of control, in my opinion, does not foster the type of scholarship that this forum can uniquely provide. Adding such doctrinal stability could turn ETS into a rally rather than a place where rigorous scholarship happens.

In fact, I think that inerrancy is too much already.

Here are my reasons for saying this:

1. I don’t believe that inerrancy is of “supreme” importance as stated here. If such a caveat were included on the ETS doctrinal statement, I would have second thoughts as to whether I could sign it in good conscience. I believe that inerrancy is important, but not supreme, even for such a society to function.

2. Inerrancy is too narrow. With all that has happened over the last fifty years with regard to this doctrine, the doctrine cannot serve as a valid foundational basis for true scholarship. Inerrancy naturally produces hermeneutical assumptions that are not shared by all those who adhere to it. Therefore, it has lost its meaning and ability to anchor without great misunderstandings.

3. Authority is the issue. I think adopting the firmer stance on the authority of Scripture would solve many of the problems that the current statement causes.

I propose this doctrinal statement:

“The Bible alone is the final authority for all Christians in matters of faith and practice.”

That is it. No more, no less.

This would allow for a broad range of scholarship without having certain nuances of the hermeneutics of inerrancy policing the effectiveness of the society’s purpose. It would allow for a broad range of scholarship by truly anchoring the society in bibliology rather than a particular implied hermeneutic that often accompanies inerrancy.

Yeah, BUT . . .

This too broad, allowing for too many loopholes?

It might, but probably not. Any doctrinal statement one puts forth will have its loopholes. But these possible loopholes should not cause anyone to fear. Those who go through these loopholes will provide the challenges that the society needs. I have found that the Open Theism controversy has been a positive influence on the Society, and Evangelicalism in general. Not because many are ascribing to it, but because it has brought serious discussion, challenge, and reaffirmation of our understanding of God’s nature. Sometimes heresy is introduced to provide clarity.

What about Mormons?

If a Mormon can sign the doctrinal statement, they are not really Mormons since Mormons have other books that they believe are as authoritative (if not more) than the Scriptures.

What about Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox?

I don’t think there would be many of either of these traditions who become members of the Society. I do believe that some Catholics and Orthodox could sign this statement in good conscience, but this would be the exception. A Roman Catholic or Orthodox who holds to prima Scriptura, such as Scot Hahn and, possibly, Francis Beckwith, Peter Kreeft, and Bradely Nassif, might be able to sign this statement, but what is the harm? I think that the society would do well with this kind of diversity in scholarship. Again, this would be the exception. But one must realize that as it stands right now, Preterists and Pelagians can sign the document. Are these not much further outside the circle of Evangelicalism than Roman Catholics and Orthodox? Yet I don’t find the society being overrun by such. If they present significant challenges, isn’t that what it is about. Do we fear such? The grounding of these challenges would be engaged through a rigorous study of the Scriptures. That is what the society is about.

What about the canon?

I would be open to defining the canon, but would not be so quick to add this. Again, I don’t think there would be any significant challenges to the Protestant canon, but if there were, wouldn’t be a privilege to engage them? Again, isn’t that what the society is about?

Isn’t this just proposing a foundation of sola Scriptura?

Yes and no. It is a narrow definition of sola Scriptura. Normally I would say that sola Scriptura is properly defined as “The belief that the Scriptures are the final and only infallible source of authority for the Christian.” For the ETS doctrinal statement, would take out the “only infallible” since it might cause some members to question the validity of those members who hold to a continuationist view of prophecy (those who believe that the gift of prophecy is still active today). This could be problematic for some of the society’s most valued and prolific members. In the end, Scripture is that which tests all beliefs, including modern-day prophetic revelation.

What about elected officials? What if we had a Roman Catholic president?

I think that the society is controlled by its members. The members would always be decidedly Evangelical Protestant. I doubt that any elected official would fall outside of the spectrum of true Evangelicalism. Besides, as it stands now, ETS could have a Pelagian president. Why don’t they? Because one would never get elected. It is that simple.

Conclusion

With such a doctrinal foundation, I believe ETS would be better suited to accomplish its purpose. While I believe in inerrancy, I think it is, today, somewhat counter productive to the purpose of ETS. It just carries too much baggage that narrows the field of scholarship unnecessarily. If someone believes that the Scriptures are the final authority, that is good enough, in my opinion, as a foundation for the exchange of ideas and biblical scholarship. As well, this would allow many Evangelicals, such as Alister McGrath, Roger Olson, and I. Howard Marshall, who have their reservations about inerrancy, yet are tremendous Evangelical scholars, to contribute to ETS.

I believe that Inerrancy is too much. It represents a twentieth-century American Evangelical phenomenon which often has a spoiled meaning and is no longer effective as it was in a different context. I believe that ETS should adopt a new doctrinal statement that is based on the authority of Scripture, not inerrancy.

Please see my friend Denny Burk’s proposal “Inerrancy is Not Enough“, which would take an opposite approach. It is well argued and needs to be read.

(Let me just say that my views don’t necessarily represent the views of other contributors to this blog :) .)

Please help us to monitor the comments by alerting us to abusive, spam, offensive, or ungracious posts. blog@reclaimingthemind.org.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!