“Rescuing Inerrancy,” by Hugh Ross: A Book Review Series (Part 1: Chapters 1-4–What’s the Problem?)

If you follow my blog regularly, and if you read my previous post, you know that a revised edition of my 2016 book The Heresy of Ham is now out. First things first—go buy ten copies and send them to friends and family. Secondly, to be honest, I wasn’t expecting it to get published so soon. I was thinking, “Maybe if I’m lucky it will be out by Thanksgiving at the earliest, hopefully before Christmas.” With that in mind, I was planning to do another more “literary” series on my blog about Sherwood Anderson’s book, Winesburg, Ohio. After that, I figured, whenever my book comes out, I’ll do another series on Hugh Ross’ recent book, Rescuing Inerrancy. Ross is the founder of Reasons to Believe, an organization committed to arguing for the compatibility of science and faith, but he is neither a young earth creationist nor a theistic evolutionist.

In any case, my book has come out quicker than I expected, so it looks like I’ll be flipping my plans and diving into my book analysis of Ross’ book. Welcome…. As with my other book analyses series, I attempt to go through, chapter by chapter, and provide both a brief summary and then my own observations. Call it an ongoing written conversation with the book.

The aim of Ross’ book, as the name suggests, is to “rescue” the doctrine of Inerrancy from the growing number of “respected evangelical scholars” who say that, because of new scientific findings, that “it’s time to rethink the bedrock doctrine of biblical inerrancy.” If you follow the ongoing “creation-evolution” debates, Ross’ book is aimed at more of the “BioLogos” crowd. Unlike Ken Ham, Ross is entirely civil and diplomatic in his criticisms of scholars in that camp, but he still feels that the claims those scholars are making are deeply problematic. Hopefully, this book analysis series will give you an in-depth look at Ross’ argument, as well as my critique of it.

Chapter 1: Surprising Theological Developments
Ross begins by noting that recent studies have shown that a growing number adults in evangelical churches are “rejecting once-foundational teachings.” Specifically, over 25% apparently “deny that the Bible is the Word of God and that it is trustworthy and reliable.” Obviously, a big part of this deals with…you guessed it…the creation/evolution debate and the understanding of Genesis 1-11. What bothers Ross is that there seems to be an “either/or” approach to the Bible in this regard: “The idea that readers must choose either the Bible’s scientific-historical veracity or its poetic beauty, mythical scope, and spiritual revelation lies at the very core of unnecessary disunity.” To the contrary, Ross believes that “science is an ally and not an enemy where the accuracy and authority of the Bible are concerned.” Hence, he advances what is known as concordism, the attempt to show that science and Scripture can be reconciled.

Although I appreciate Ross’ concern and sincerity, I’m not sure that even characterizing the issue as “either/or” or “concordism” is not quite a good place to start, for it starts with the assumption that science even needs to be reconciled to Scripture in order for Scripture to be legitimate and authoritative. It assumes that the Bible (specifically Genesis 1-11, as well as a few other places) is making scientific claims, and therefore if it is, and it is wrong about those scientific claims, then it is no longer trustworthy. I would say that the truth and authority of Scripture is not dependent on science to begin with. The first question we should ask when coming to a passage like Genesis 1 isn’t “How can this be reconciled with science?” but rather “What is the author trying to communicate? What is the inspired message?” If it is clear that it isn’t trying to communicate scientific truths, then there is no need to try to make it reconciled to science.

Chapter 2: Dual or Dueling Divine Revelation
The gist of this chapter is that Ross argues that Christianity has “two expert witnesses.” Another way of saying this is that there are two books of revelation: the book of Scripture and the book of nature. The problem these days, as Ross sees it, is that “this belief that the two books faithfully corroborate one another is being vigorously assailed—by leaders within the church.” And that is what Ross addresses in chapters 3-4, as we will see.

Although I can appreciate this idea of the “two books” of revelation, I hesitate making too much of just how much the “book of nature” reveals about God. I tend to side more with C.S. Lewis, when he says in his book Mere Christianity, that when it comes to the natural world, there really are only two things we can conclude about God. He writes, “I think we should have to conclude that he was a great artist (for the universe is a very beautiful place), but also that he is quite merciless and no friend to man (for the universe is a very dangerous and terrifying place).” As far as I’m concerned, that is all that nature can tell us about God. Therefore, any attempt to elevate this “book of nature” to the same level as Scripture is bound to be a mistake. The veracity and truthfulness and reliability of Scripture is not dependent on whether or not it lines up with the latest findings of science.

Chapter 3: A New Challenge Arises
In Chapter 3, Ross gives a brief bird’s eye view of the history of the debate over the historical reliability of the Bible. In a nutshell, he makes the following points: (A) Up until the 18^th century, the West largely viewed the Bible as reliable; (B) Since the Enlightenment, though, many have begun to treat the Bible as a book of spiritual truths, but not so much reliable or true when it comes to the world of nature and the physical realm; (C) Specifically within Protestantism, there developed two segments: the “liberal camp” that leaned toward the Enlightenment view, and the “conservative camp” that defended the reliability of the Bible in regard to salvation and the natural world.

Ross spends a considerable amount of time highlighting the resolutions of the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy (ICBI) that took place between 1978-1986. He equates the importance of this council with the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15. Without going through all the articles, the gist of all of them is this: Scripture is infallible and inerrant, not only in spiritual matters, but also in the fields of history and science. Although there are clearly different literary categories in the Bible, the Bible’s record of events and people are historically true. And when it comes to Genesis 1-11, it “is factual, as is the rest of the book.”

Ross stresses that the ICBI doesn’t deny the scientific method or downplay the role of science. When it comes to Genesis 1-11, it just insists that “Genesis 1-11 represents something more than myth and that the interpretive methods employed by scientists may be subject to misuse as interpretive approaches to the biblical text are.”

After that, Ross gives an overview of initially atheist and later progressive objections to taking Genesis 1-11 as historical fact. He covers atheist Jerry Coyne, who called Darwin’s Origin of Species “the greatest scripture-killer ever penned,” as well as men like Richard Dawkins, Freidrich Schleiermacher, Johann Gottfried Eichhorn, Hermann Gunkel, and John Shelby Spong, who all, while appealing to science and evolution, either called into question or outright rejected the notion that Genesis 1-11 is historical. Even Karl Barth said that the Old Testament “reflects the errant scientific and historical views of its human authors and their contemporaries,” and that the Creation narratives were “sagas” that blend history, legend, and fable. Finally, Ross, mentions Bruce Waltke, who said that Genesis 1 was not an accurate historical chronology of events, Peter Enns, who said that he Holy Spirit worked with human authors, the result being that the Bible is true in its primary theological message, but also contained mistaken beliefs of the human authors when it came to more trivial points regarding geography, history, and science, and Kenton Sparks, who argued that “God has selected to speak to human beings through adequate rather than inerrant words.”

Although Chapter 3 does give quite a broad-ranging overview, it fails to really give anything more than an overview of shallow soundbites. We don’t really learn about any of the arguments either way. All we get a surface-level “the ICBI says the Bible is inerrant in terms of history and science, but these guys disagree!” At bottom, the problem with both positions as laid out in the chapter boils down to this: both seem to think the reliability of the Bible (or more specifically Genesis 1-11) ultimately depends “on the science.” One side says, “Sure, there are literary ‘categories,’ but all the people and events mentioned in the Bible are real, no matter what!” while the other side says, “Science shows that much in the Bible isn’t historical, period.” The atheists might then conclude that the ENTIRE Bible is full of crap, while the Christians in this “camp” will still value the Bible, but then still conclude that “it gets things wrong sometimes.”

But is it really wise to group Barth, Waltke, and Enns with…Coyne and Dawkins? I mean, essentially grouping them together like that is going to kind of skew things. On top of that, like I said, there is nothing really specific said—it’s an overview of soundbites. By the end of the chapter, we don’t really learn anything new.

Chapter 4: Disturbing Concessions
In Chapter 4, Ross does provide a few more details regarding what he finds so problematic about the positions of not only Waltke and Enns, but also of BioLogos and scholars like John Walton, Tremper Longman III, Denis Venema, Scot McKnight, Denis Lamoureux, Michael Heiser, and William Lane Craig. Here’s a bullet-point summary:

• Waltke said that it would be “spiritual death” if Christians deny the reality of biological evolution.
• BioLogos says that when it comes to “biblical inerrancy,” it extends only to the Bible revealing God’s attributes and moral standards and presents the truth of God’s redemption plan through Christ, nothing more.
• Enns said the ICBI was largely counterproductive, that “maybe not all the Bible is inspired, just the parts that get it right,” and that the OT authors probably didn’t really care about history science.
• Walton argued that Genesis 1 wasn’t meant to be understood as an account of material origins, but rather was a “temple text” that depicted the cosmos as a temple. He argued, “Science cannot offer an unbiblical view of material origins because there is no biblical view of material origins.” He also argued that the ANE people had little interest in science, and that while Adam and Eve may have been historical people in some sense, Paul treats them “merely as archetypes.”
• Longman argued that while Genesis 1-11 describes real events, it does so through figurative language, “for the purpose of making theological, not scientific points.” He also argues that Leviathan and Behemoth in Job are mythical, allegorical allusions, and not actual animals.
• Venema and McKnight argued that Genesis 1 is concerned about the purpose of creation and not the physical origins of it.
• Lamoureaux argued against any kind of concordance between science and the Bible.
• Heiser argued that the story of Adam and Eve is “the product of a pre-scientific culture” and “isn’t about science in any way.”
• Lane Craig argued that there was a historical Adam and Eve, but then identified them as being members of Homo heidelbergensis, roughly 750,000-1,000,000 years ago.

Ross is concerned about what each of these scholars are teaching because they have considerable influence in the training of Christian leaders. The problem with what they are teaching, according to Ross, is this: “Not only does it imply that readers are free to decide which parts of the Bible are true and which are mistaken human ideas, but it also implies that human evolution is ongoing.” And also: “According to the ‘expert testimony’ offered by some of today’s highly regarded scholars and authors, Christians have for 2,000 years been mistaken in their understanding—and defense—of Scripture’s trustworthiness as divinely revealed truth, and nothing but the truth.”

Well then, that’s a lot to take in. Without yet going into details concerning these views (as well as those of Ross), within these first four chapters, we should see a general theme emerging. Basically, the concern over “biblical inerrancy” and “biblical infallibility” seems to center around two things: (1) whether or not it conflicts or coincides with science, and (2) claims that there are things in the Bible the authors got wrong. Perhaps we can add a third concern that Ross gives: (3) his feeling that these scholars are telling readers they can just “pick and choose” which parts of the Bible are true and/or mistaken. While I agree I can see why some might feel that way, and while I agree some of those scholars unnecessarily (or unthinkingly) give that impression, I think that third concern is unfounded.

The way I see it, the driving concern that we should have when it comes to understanding the Bible—any book and any passage in the Bible—is this: “What is the author intending to communicate?” because the intended message is the inspired message. And to understand that message, we need to make sure we understand just what we’re reading. So, when coming to something like Genesis 1-11, our first questions should be, “What is the author trying to communicate?” and “What is the genre of this section?” (because genre determines the guiding literary rubric through which to read and interpret a passage). The moment we jump over that first step and those initial questions and start comparing any passage with “science” or defending (or refuting) the doctrine of inerrancy, is the moment we’re going to start make some mistakes. We will very easily be sacrificing the attempt to simply understand the text on its own terms for the sake of making the text fit into some pre-conceived notion of what the truth of the passage should look like.

To be fair to a number of the scholars Ross mentions, I’ve read their works, and they do take great pains to address these issues in depth. Some are more thorough and thoughtful than others, but I don’t think any of them would agree with Ross that what they’re doing is simply giving a green light for the reader to determine on his own what parts of the Bible are true and what are false.

Let all this sink in. In my next post, I’ll cover the next few chapters of Ross’ book and start giving my take on some of these specific issues.