Our extremely well read friend, Dan, has written a thought-provoking post on how he understands scripture here.
Here are four more random thoughts, unrelated to Dan's post, on rethinking the doctrine of scripture:
- It should recognise the significance of the ecclesial womb in which the canon grew – thus also the correct principles of interpretation (the rule of faith)
- It needs to recognise that modern forms of academic discourse may not be the most appropriate contexts in which to banter, with intellectual integrity, the term 'inerrancy'; the phenomena of the text must shape such debate rather than external deductive wringers (i.e. 'inspired by God' + 'God never lies' = inerrancy) .
- That said, speech about the biblical texts in ecclesial and doxological contexts should not have to be as restrained, detached and coy in its dogmatic formulations (perhaps talk of inerrancy is more appropriate here, so long as it does not consistently breach the eschatological limitations on any claims about truth – cf. 1 Cor. 13:12)
- The task of bridging the academic and ecclesial contexts can perhaps best proceed by negotiating a relational ontology in defining the inspiration of scripture, one which reframes the truthfulness of scripture in terms of our communal and personal stance towards the texts and our daily practices.