‘Inerrancy’ and the Brethren in Christ View of Scripture
By Luke L. Keefer, Jr.
Reprinted with permission from Reflections on a Heritage, E. Morris Sider, editor
The 1986 General Conference of the Brethren in Christ Church authorized the development of a current statement of doctrine for the denomination. This seemed merited because the statement presently being used was adopted in 1961. A task force was assigned the responsibility to draft a statement for presentation to General Conference. At different points in this process, draft versions were shared with entire church and its input was solicited.
In the spring of 1990 the statement prepared for General Conference of that year was shared at all the regional conferences for questions and comments. One concern that surfaced at the regional conferences was why the statement on Scripture did not include such terms as “inerrancy” and “infallibility” as descriptions of the Bible. I was asked by the task force to address this issue on the floor of General Conference. This article is a revised and expanded version of that sponsorship. The general outlook represents the stance of the task force, while the specific arguments are my own formulation of the question.
I want to state at the beginning that I welcome this question from some of the constituency. It has been a sensitive issue in Christianity for nearly a century and has generated some unnecessary debates and exercises in unprofitable name-calling.
The emotion generated, however, does reflect that a serious issue is in focus. Christians who have gone soft in their doctrine of Scripture tend sooner or later to question basic Christian beliefs and practices. The Brethren in Christ Church has a healthy concern that this does not happen to us. We have no desire to find or formulate a soft stance on the integrity of Scripture.
The only question for debate is whether terms like “inerrancy” or “infallibility” are essential to a strong doctrine of Scripture. Do we have a stronger doctrine of God’s Word if they are included? Is it weaker if they are not used? Some feel the answer to both these questions is “yes.” The task force and, I believe, the majority of Brethren in Christ, feel the answer to these questions is either “no” or “not necessarily.” It is my task, therefore, to spell out the rationale for a negative response to these specific questions.
The task force’s approach to this issue, as to the entire doctrinal statement, was to state our beliefs positively, simply, and in keeping with the heritage of the denomination. These goals shape the response to the questions before us.
A positive statement on Scripture
Various phrases in the statement clearly affirm that the books of the Old and New Testaments are God’s inspired Word, that the Bible is authoritative and reliable, that therein alone the way to salvation is revealed to all people, and that it is the duty of all Christians to hear and to obey God’s Word. The statement declares the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in the initial writing of Scripture. The Spirit’s role is also affirmed in the processes of canonization and transmission of the Bible, and in the illumination necessary for the church to understand the message of Scripture and its application to lives today. The attempt was to declare briefly the Bible’s own description of itself and its God-ordained task.
Terms like “inerrant” and “infallible” are negative terms. They declare what the Bible is not—that it contains no errors and is not capable of being at fault. There is an assumption that the Bible must be defended against certain attacks upon it. But certainly it needs no such defense against people who believe that it is the only complete, reliable, true, and authoritative Word of God. Such people the Brethren in Christ are. Since they are not attacking the trustworthiness of Scripture, words like “inerrant” and “infallible” cannot be construed as necessary words they need addressed to themselves.
Who then are the villains for whom the words “inerrant” and “infallible” are necessary defenses? They were and are, for the most part, liberal Protestants in the last hundred years. Since the Protestant movement places sole authority in Scripture for belief and practice, any challenge to its reliability is crucial. For if Scripture is faulty, then there is no such word of divine revelation to which one can appeal.
Toward the end of the nineteenth century, critical methods of studying the Bible led to charges of errors in Scripture. Such charges had been raised previously, but the ones making the charges were not Christian by profession. Now Christians in the ministry were voicing the challenges. Conservative Christians rejected the charges. In this Fundamentalist response to the liberals, the words “inerrancy” and “infallibility” were employed as defenses of the integrity of God’s Word.
Culturally and theologically the Brethren in Christ were isolated from much of this battle. Our system of self-trained and self-supported ministry meant that we were kept from the conflict which raged in institutions of higher education where many Christian ministers were trained for pastoral duties. Some Brethren in Christ people knew of this conflict in Protestant Christianity. To the degree that they understood the “battle for the Bible,” they agreed with the conservative cause. Yet they did not feel close to the Fundamentalists in doctrine or practice, for many Fundamentalists were Calvinistic in doctrine and did not agree with such Anabaptist practices as pacifism, separation in dress, and feet washing. Thus, while the Brethren in Christ agreed in principle with the conservatives on the doctrine of Scripture, they did not identify with them to the extent of using their code words “inerrant” and “infallible.”
If this were the whole story, one could then ask, why not adopt these words now as an identification against liberal Protestantism? For we now train most of our ministers in institutions of higher learning where they are quite aware of the “battle for the Bible.” If we accept a conservative stance, why object to using its code words? There is a hint from our history, I think, that our people felt there were good grounds not to employ these terms.
It is rather clear that Fundamentalism did affect the Brethren in Christ doctrine of eschatology in moving us into dispensational premillennialism in the twentieth century. The Brethren in Christ before that point did not have a well-defined doctrine of end time events, thus they were susceptible to the forcefulness of dispensational premillennialism. We need to ask, therefore, why we adopted this “loan doctrine” from the Fundamentalists while rejecting their “loan words” in the doctrine of Scripture.
I suspect the answer to this question is threefold. First, we had a clearly defined doctrine of Scripture which we felt no need to change. Secondly, our people felt our positive statement of Scripture said all that needed to be said, especially since much of it was in the words of Scripture itself. Thirdly, our pacifist position made us shy away from “flag words” which our people likely felt stirred up strife. They sensed that adopting defenses of “inerrancy” and “infallibility” was to engage oneself in a pitched battle that could yield no winners. The ongoing debate merely shifts the territory to be defended, and a new battle of definitions and counter-definitions erupts. The Brethren had reason to bless their pacifist heritage. It spared them a battle that could only damage the church.
Our forerunners in the faith, therefore, emphatically felt words like “inerrancy” and “infallibility” were not essential to a strong doctrine of Scripture. They believed we had an adequate position on the trustworthiness of the Bible, and these words would not enhance that statement. In addition, these words could stir up strife where there was none. Nothing could be gained by employing these words, but something could be lost. They wisely chose not to employ these risky terms. A positive statement about Scripture has greater strength than do negative terms.
A simple statement on Scripture
Our doctrinal statements are intended for the use of all the people in the church. They will be read by professional people seeking to understand the doctrinal commitments of the denomination, but the primary audience is the people of the church. The task force tried to use language that would be understandable for the average Brethren in Christ member. We did not try to compile a statement which sounded like theologians writing a statement which other theologians would read.
Simple language was our goal. Not only does this mean using ordinary words whenever possible to convey biblical teaching, but also avoiding words that would need extensive definition to be understood. Ordinary members do not have the command of church history and theology to understand the context of some terms.
From this perspective, terms like “inerrant” and “infallible” are complex terms rather than simple ones. That is, they are not understandable without further definitions or explanations. Many statements on Scripture which utilize the term “inerrant” need to qualify themselves by adding “in the original manuscripts.” In other words, what they assert is that the original copies of biblical books in Hebrew and Greek were without any errors. However valuable it might be to assert this fact, it nonetheless makes the issue more complex, for now the issue of “without error” is restricted to the original copies of the biblical books.
Furthermore, common logic realizes that this restricted defense of inerrancy shifts the attention away from the reliability of the Scripture the Christian takes in hand today. One expects the statement, “the Bible is inerrant,” to apply to the copy he or she is reading. Those who want the word “inerrant” included feel that it enhances the reader’s confidence in the Bible. But the qualifier—“in the original manuscripts”—distracts from the confidence in the current copy, thus defeating the purpose it is purported to serve.
More to the point is Paul’s word to Timothy that all Scripture is inspired, able to instruct for salvation, and to equip the Christian for all good works (2 Tim. 3:15–17). Paul’s word of confidence was directed to the copy of Scripture Timothy had access to from his youth. It is the same with Christ’s followers today. The doctrine of inspiration is to assure them of the reliability of Scripture available to them, that it truly teaches the way of salvation. Few of them are concerned about the technical question of the original manuscripts.
Millard J. Erickson is an evangelical theologian who is willing to use “inerrancy” in a guarded sense as a characteristic description of the Bible. He admits that it is not directly taught in Scripture but is inferred from its full inspiration. If it is used as a qualifier of Scripture, he says it should come last in a series of qualifiers after more positive terms. His textbook on theology uses five pages to describe different interpretations of inerrancy. The point is that “inerrancy” is not a simple, self-defining word. One has to go to certain lengths to identify what variety of “inerrancy” she or he is prepared to support.
To do this a person engages in rather complex issues of text, canonization, and transmission of the Bible. Many Christians are not trained to deal with these issues. Should a doctrinal statement, therefore, use terms which are too complex for the average Christian to grasp? Is it not better to talk of the truthfulness, the reliability, and the authority of Scripture? These are simple terms which cover the same concerns to which “inerrancy” and “infallibility” are applied, without the complex baggage those terms entail.
Many who call for the inclusion of “inerrancy” language in the statement are aware of all these problems with the terms. They are motivated by a concern to erect a protective wall around the Bible. It is their sincere wish that the denomination’s statement on Scripture be so strong that the denomination would not be lured into doctrinal compromises and that the members would not have their faith in the Bible shaken by a skeptical, permissive culture.
The motivation is noble and the intention is sincere. But one must ask whether it is accurate that strong statements of scriptural infallibility keep individuals and denominations from drifting from the written Word. New religious movements have come out of Christianity that have no problem with the full inspiration of the Scripture, yet they deny the deity of Christ, the Trinity, or the reality of the atonement. In the early days of Protestant liberalism, some denominations put “inerrancy” clauses into their statements on the doctrine of Scripture; today they have espoused the liberal views they then deplored. University students from conservative churches, reared in strict climates of “inerrancy” views, have sometimes revolted against Scripture entirely in the course of their studies.
Protective fences around the Word have proved no more effective for Christians than the Pharisaic principle of “fencing the Torah” did for the Jews. Strong statements about Scripture’s truthfulness are not sufficient in and of themselves. The seventeenth-century Puritan, Richard Baxter, explains why. He notes that our inner confidence (subjective assurance) in something’s truthfulness can be no stronger than the objective evidence for it. Strong statements will crumble when one is confronted by evidence which seems to contradict them.
If we want to keep people from drifting from the Word, then we need to provide adult education classes that equip them to deal with the evidence of the biblical text. We will pay the price to see that our youth attend Christian colleges where they are trained to “correctly [handle] the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15). We will make every effort to train our ministers in schools that instill confidence in Scripture on the basis of the textual evidence of the biblical manuscripts. Attempts like this will get better results than strict statements about the Scripture, for they begin with evidence and move to conviction. Strong statements about Scripture ask for blind commitments of conviction apart from the evidence, and such faith is often shaken when a skilled detractor presents evidence the believer is not prepared to handle.
There is a time to be simple and a time to be complex. What I have argued for is that our statement about Scripture be in simple, easily understood terms. Here we should avoid words like “inerrancy” and “infallibility” because they involve complexities which cannot be clarified in brief statements. In our training of believers, however, we should equip them to handle the complex tools of scriptural study. We have nothing to hide. The Bible stands up well to the scrutiny of evidence. But we must resist the short-cut method of enforcing simple “inerrancy” commitments before and apart from the honest study of the Bible. Baxter was right; there can be no degree of confidence within greater than the external evidence warrants. Complexity here is helpful.
We are dealing with two separate issues. One is the denomination’s brief statement about Scripture. The second is the Christian education of the faithful so they can study and teach the Word with confidence. The issues call for different approaches. Thus, we are wise to use terms in our doctrinal statement that are clear and simple.
A statement on Scripture in keeping with the heritage
Throughout the two centuries of Brethren in Christ history, several confessions and doctrinal statements have been composed and approved by the church. The earliest of these is the “Confession of Faith” compiled by the leadership, likely within the first few years of the denomination’s experience. There is no explicit statement on Scripture in the Confession. Rather its truthfulness is assumed, and it is cited as the authority for all the points of belief and practice set forth in the document.
The second document is a booklet of ninety-six pages titled Origin, Confession of Faith and Church Government. It includes the minutes of General Conference for the years 1871–1901, along with a brief history of the denomination, a summary of its doctrine, and directions for church government. There is a short sentence in the confession of faith section in regards to Scripture. It affirms that the Old and New Testaments are the Word of God and moves immediately to the doctrines of sin and salvation revealed in the Bible. The first question put to elders and ministers at their ordination was this inquiry concerning Scripture: “Are you persuaded that the Holy Scriptures contain all doctrine required for eternal salvation through faith in Jesus Christ, and will you instruct the people committed to your charge and teach nothing but that which you are persuaded may be proven by the Scriptures?”
Several things stand out in the statements. The Bible is accepted without question in brief, simple affirmations. The question quickly moves from Scripture as the Word of God to the matters of salvation, Christian living, and church life as set forth in Scripture. Lastly, while the Liberal-Fundamentalist “battle for the Bible” is already launched by this time in North America, there are no expressions that reflect awareness of it.
The statement on Scripture in the Manual of the Brethren in ChristChurch (1916) might reflect some influence from Fundamentalism. It has the concept of “inerrancy,” though it does not use the term: “We believe in the plenary inspiration of God’s Word; that holy men wrote as they were moved and directed by the Holy Spirit; and what they wrote was God’s own Word and is as authentic and correct as if God had written it with His own hand. And it is obligatory.” It concludes with the quotation of several verses on the inspiration and authority of the Bible.
The fourth statement comes from the doctrinal deliberations of the 1930s which were embodied in the Constitution, Doctrine, By-Laws and Rituals of the Brethren in Christ Church, published in several editions in the 1940s. The first article in the doctrinal section is on Scripture. The first paragraph begins with the fact of general revelation and moves on to the need for special revelation. The second paragraph notes the sufficiency of Scripture to lead to salvation, and then addresses the authority and trustworthiness of the Bible: “The authority of the Holy Scripture is not dependent upon the word of any man or church, but, inspired of God, and miraculously preserved, it constitutes the ultimate authority in truth and right and therefore is to be received and obeyed without question (2 Pet. 1:21; 2 Tim. 3:16).”
The final paragraph notes Scripture’s ability to address all issues of life, emphasizes the role of the Holy Spirit in interpreting Scripture, and comments upon the authority of the church to regulate worship and individual conduct according to the general principles of the Bible. This is a more typical Brethren in Christ statement than was the Manual of 1916. It reflects no Fundamentalist influence, a remarkable fact in light of the eschatological statements in the creed section of the document which reflect a clear step toward premillennialism.
In 1945 the denomination published a Manual for Christian Youth which sought to teach the history, organization, and doctrines of the church. It reflects much of the spirit of the previous document in its approach and content. It emphasizes the dynamic role of Scripture in the individual’s life. Its final paragraph addresses the theme of this essay. “The Holy Scriptures are eternal and abiding. Change and decay are in evidence all around. Methods, styles, and practices are constantly changing, but the Holy Scriptures are once and eternally the same and will abide when time shall be no more.” This is a practical statement about the authority of Scripture and employs no “inerrancy” terminology.
Finally, we need to consider the last doctrinal statement before the present one, which was approved in its final reading at the 1961 General Conference. This is of particular interest since the articles on eschatology reflect an endorsement of premillennialism promoted by Fundamentalist teaching. The article on Scripture, however, reflects none of the “buzz words” nor the characteristic emphases of Fundamentalism. Rather it gathers together typical Brethren in Christ views on Scripture as found in all the previous statements, except for the Manual of 1916. The Old and New Testaments are given by divine revelation, and reach their climax in the incarnation of Christ as the living Word of God, who provides for the salvation of humankind. As such, Scripture is authoritative over both life and conduct. The illumination of the Holy Spirit is essential for the understanding of Scripture, with Scripture being its own best interpreter of the divine message.
What do our historic statements teach us? First, they reflect that the Brethren in Christ have consistently held to a high view of Scripture. Its full inspiration and absolute authority are emphasized. Its trustworthiness is assumed; it is never even in question. Secondly, this high doctrine of Scripture is maintained without one occurrence of the code words “inerrancy” and “infallibility.” It seems, then, that these words are not germane to a strong doctrine of Scripture.
This impression is strengthened by the evidence of sister denominations. The Anabaptist tradition and the Wesleyan tradition both have high views of Scripture. Yet the Anabaptist churches have largely avoided “inerrancy” language, and the Wesleyan churches have employed it sparingly, without the emotional and rational energy of the churches of the Reformed tradition. We are not alone, then, in our stance.
If there is no essential connection between “inerrancy” language and a high view of Scripture, how shall we understand why some employ the code words and others avoid them? It is a matter, I believe, of two different theological heritages and their divergent methods of doctrinal formulation. A large segment of Fundamentalism and conservative Evangelicalism is Reformed in its outlook and methods. This heritage tends toward a deductive approach to theology. Applied to the doctrine of Scripture, the logic takes this form: (1) God is infallible, (2) the Scriptures are God’s creation, and (3) thus, they are without error. It follows the same approach in extracting propositional statements of scriptural teaching.
We stand with the Anabaptists and Wesleyans in the Armenian heritage. Our method of doctrinal formulation is inductive. We first come to Scripture. We find that it testifies to its inspiration, authority, and trustworthiness. We proceed, therefore, to what Scripture teaches about salvation and life.
Here lies the difference between the methods. The one begins with a logical deduction to determine the trustworthiness of Scripture. The other begins with Scripture’s own statement about its trustworthiness. Both appeal to Scripture for support, often citing the same passages. The deductive method, however, assumes that the result of its syllogism establishes the nature of scriptural reliability. It sees “inerrancy” as a logically necessary proposition. The scriptural testimony to itself is interpreted according to this necessary definition. According to this approach, one cannot have an adequate doctrine of Scripture without a statement on “inerrancy.” The inductive approach allows Scripture to define its own understanding of reliability. Since there is no statement on “inerrancy” in Scripture itself, this method concludes that it is not necessary for an adequate view of Scripture.
Now I am biased enough to believe that we have the better approach, and I think that is why our heritage has taken certain teachings of Scripture (like pacifism, for example) more literally than the Reformed heritage has. The point, however, is not which approach is more right and which one is less right. The issue is that our current statement on Scripture is true to our heritage in omitting “inerrancy” language from our document. For us to take on this alien battle dress would be as foolish as David’s clattering around in Saul’s armor when going out to face Goliath. Fortunately, he realized his mistake in time and let God use the methods that worked for him.
We are not compelled to pass judgment upon those Christians whose heritage and method urge them to employ “inerrancy” language. We must decide whether it is right for us, given our heritage and theological method, to employ these terms in our statement. I have labored to demonstrate that the answer here is clearly “no.” Our spiritual ancestors, for two centuries and more, advise us to avoid the terms in question. These terms add nothing to the strength of our regard for Scripture, and they have potential for detracting from our stance. Our spiritual forebears have a right to a voice in our conference deliberations.
Final thoughts
We are a fortunate church in that we never used “inerrancy” language in our statements on Scripture. Consequently, we are not in the awkward position of some conservative churches who would like to be rid of the baggage of “inerrancy” terms while supporting a high view of Scripture. They find that trying to remove “inerrancy” language raises the suspicion that the denomination is going soft on the integrity of the Bible. They must either risk a nasty battle over terms or let the language stay while qualifying it so as to remove some of its difficulties. By neither way can they achieve a statement that pleases everyone. Their example seems to say to us that we should not create a problem for ourselves that we have managed to avoid for a hundred years.
Given the nature of this discussion, it has been necessary to identify historical movements that have strongly supported “inerrancy” language. While we believe that we can have a strong statement on God’s Word without using their emphatic terms, we stand with them in a high confessional regard for the integrity of the Bible. We differ from some of them on certain doctrinal positions, but we are close to them in our support for historic orthodox Christian doctrine. There is only a small gap between us and conservative Christians to our right. But there is a huge gulf between us and liberal Christianity on our left on many crucial doctrinal issues, particularly so on the question of the reliability of the Bible. We, therefore, should avoid the silly game of Fundamentalist-bashing that the media loves to promote.
In the final analysis, our regard for Scripture is not measured entirely by the statement General Conference will determine. It is possible for Christians to live better than the doctrinal statements of their denomination, and it is possible for members to live worse than the official statements of the church. Our fathers and mothers in the church rightly emphasized the place Scripture must have in the life of the church and its people. They knew that our actions speak louder than our words. So, previous denominational statements on the Bible emphasized its practical effects in our lives and called us to hear the Word and heed its authority over all of life. The present statement also emphasizes these points. Our Christian discipleship, or lack thereof, will be the true measure of our attitude toward Scripture.
Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983–85), pp. 222–240.
Donald G. Bloesch, Essestials of Evangelical Theology (San Francisco: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1978), Vol I, p. 83, f.n. 64. Note the groups he cites as illustrations of this.
Richard Baxter, The Autobiography of Richard Baxter, J.M. Lloyd-Thomas, ed. (London: J.M. Dent and Sons, Ltd., 1931), p. 111, where Baxter acknowledges that he has borrowed this idea from Richard Hooker.
See Carlton O. Wittlinger, Quest for Piety and Obedience: A Story of the Brethren in Christ (Nappanee, Ind.: Evangel Press, 1978), pp. 551–554, for an English translation of one of the German copies of this confession.
The full title is Origin, Confession of Faith and Church Government, Together with an Abstract of the Most Important Decisions Made by General Council of the Brethren in Christ,Commonly Called River Brethren. 1871–1901 Inclusive. It was compiled for the church by a committee appointed by General Conference and printed in Abilene, Kansas, by The News Book and Job Print (1901).
Ibid., p.74.
The full title is Manual of the Brethren in ChristChurch of the United States of America, Dominion of Canada, and Foreign Countries. It was printed in Lancaster, Pa.: Examiner Print, 1916.
Ibid., p. 6.
Constitution-Doctrine, By-Laws and Rituals of the Brethren in Christ Church (Nappanee, Ind.: E.V. Publishing House, 1941), p. 12.
Ibid., p. 10.
Manual for Christian Youth: Doctrines and Practices Based upon the Holy Scriptures as Taught by the Brethren in Christ Church (Nappanee, Ind.: E.V. Publishing House, 1945). The Committee on Doctrinal Literature which composed it was made up of Albert H. Engle (Chairman), Jesse W. Hoover (Secretary), John N. Hostetter, Jesse F. Lady, and C. Ray Heisey.
Ibid., pp. 32–33.
Manual of Doctrine and Government of the Brethren in Christ Church (Nappanee, Ind.: Evangel Press, 1961).
A striking example of the difference in methodology is found in the only Brethren in Christ book ever written to set forth the denomination’s doctrinal system in comprehensive form. Henry L. Smith was a pioneer missionary in the denomination’s work in India. His missionary perspective comes through in his chapter on the Bible.
He begins the chapter with Christology, reflecting upon John 1:1 and Christ as the word that was with God. He moves through the practical effects of the Word in providing salvation and ordering all of life. Finally, he discusses views of inspiration that are unacceptable for believers committed to Scripture.
When he discusses the source of the Word in God, the “Father of Light,” he does not proceed by a syllogism to establish the infallibility of the Bible. Rather, he argues that a book coming from the “Father of Light” would characteristically give light, most of all the light of salvation. For him the strongest proof of Scripture is not its logically deduced “inerrancy” but its dynamic ability to bring people to the knowledge of the true God. The divine effects of the Word in people’s lives are to him the strongest testimony to its divine origin. See H.L. Smith, Bible Doctrine (Upland, Calif.: 1921), pp. 9–32.
