This should probably be in the book review forum but here goes. [Opening myself up to criticism]
I’ve been reading and listening to an Kindle/Audible recording of Peter Enns book
How the Bible Actually Works (2019) for the past month or more (narrated by the author himself).
It is written in an informal manner, jokes, puns and humorous asides are thrown into the mix of serious theological questioning.
I listened to it a few times: the book is both intriguing and troublesome.
He describes our Scriptures as a very human book, a book of human wisdom but don’t get me wrong, he doesn’t deny that the words are inspired.
In a previous book, he related that we can describe Scripture in a way similar to how we describe Christ, being both 100% fully God, and 100% fully man, a view he calls the “
incarnational analogy: Christ’s incarnation is analogous to Scripture’s “incarnation." [Peter Enns,
Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament, second edition. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2015), 6.]
Enns repeatedly uses the word, “
re-imagined” as he marches us through the Scriptures, I initially presumed he meant something along the lines of "progressive revelation" but the more I listened the more I realized it was not a fit.
Why does the book bother me? He confronts various biblical problem passages directly, accepting them at face value and doesn't attempt to explain them away, rather he understands that the people (biblical authors) of the time were working out God’s ways in their own time, in their own way. They were “
re-imagining” God.
I eventually had to research exactly what Peter Enns felt about inerrancy, This was the doctrine that was being attacked.
Peter Enns participated in writing yet another book,
Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy.
His chapter was titled,
Biblical Inerrancy: Peter Enns – An Argument Against Inerrancy
The Bible is a book that tells one grand narrative, but by means of divergent viewpoints and different theologies. It tells of God’s acts but also reports some events that either may not have happened or have been significantly reshaped and transformed by centuries of tradition. It presents us with portraits of God and of his people that at times comfort and confirm our faith while at other times challenge and stretch our faith to its breaking point. This is the Bible we have, the Bible God gave us. Redefining or nuancing inerrancy to account for these properties can be of some value, and some are no doubt content to do so. The core issue, however, is how inerrancy functions in contemporary evangelical theological discourse. This too varies, but when all is said and done, I do not think inerrancy can capture the Bible’s varied character and complex dynamics. Though intended to protect the Bible, inerrancy actually sells it short by placing on it expectations it is not designed to bear—as evidenced by the need for generations of continued publications and debates to defend it. On a deeper and ultimately more important level, inerrancy sells God short. Inerrancy is routinely propounded as the logical entailment of God’s truthfulness, which for many inerrantists leads to the necessary expectation of the Bible’s historical accuracy. The premise that such an inerrant Bible is the only kind of book God would be able to produce, or the only effective means of divine communication, strikes me as assuming that God shares our modern interest in accuracy and scientific precision, rather than allowing the phenomena of Scripture to shape our theological expectations. Zondervan. Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology) Zondervan. Kindle Edition.
I've been studying biblical inerrancy for decades and have a whole shelf on the topic. For some reason Enns has made inroads into my thoughts and understandings.
It's a work-in-progress.
Rob
