The Bible: Inerrant or Humanly Flawed?
Vol. VIII, No. 2, February 1995
Our Anti-Heritage selection this month is by Dr. Richard L. Hester, who was professor of pastoral care and psychology of religion at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Wake Forest, NC, from 1975 through 1991. In his chapter in the book Servant Songs, Reflections on the History and Mission of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary 1950-1988 (Smyth & Helwys, Macon, GA, 1994) page 107, speaking of the Southeastern faculty of that day, Hester writes [bold print has been added for emphasis]:
“...we disagreed with the fundamentalists over the nature of the Bible and its interpretation. They saw the Bible as a set of inerrant propositions embodying God's revelation. We viewed the Bible as a set of human documents in which persons bore witness to their experience of God. We believed that these biblical witnesses were always limited in their vision by finitude and sin. We believed the biblical testimony was imbedded in a culture and world view different from our own and that it was a challenging task and an act of faith to bring the ancient text to life in the present context. One example of the consequences of ignoring the work of hermeneutical interpretation is their understanding of certain issues of gender and sexuality. Because they do not build a hermeneutical bridge between the text in its ancient context and its current setting, they oppose the ordination of women, they can see no problem in the views of God shaped by a patriarchal society, and they fail to understand the difference between homosexual acts addressed in the Bible and homosexuality as a gender orientation – a concept that was foreign to the biblical writers.”
The first thing to note is that these words are not an accusation brought by a conservative, but the open explanation of a major theological difference as understood by a moderate or liberal. To Dr. Hester's credit his words demonstrate that he clearly sees the distinction between the perspective he ascribes to Southeastern's faculty prior to 1988 and that of conservatives.
As Dr. Hester has set it forth, the question is: Is the Bible "God's revelation" and so inerrant, or is it a "set of human documents" and therefore replete with errors resulting from human limitations. He says that "persons bore witness." Conservatives maintain to the contrary that "holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." (II Peter 1 :21). As the prophets so frequently averred, "Thus saith the Lord." The Bible repeatedly and consistently asserts that its very words are of God. In fact, Dr. W. A. Criswell in his 1969 book Why I Preach that the Bible Is Literally True notes that statements such as "And God said" or 'The word of the Lord came, saying..." occur 3,808 times in the Old Testament. Scriptures claiming the same are too numerous to cite, but a few samples are Exodus 31:18; II Samuel 23:1-2; Psalm 119:160; Isaiah 40:8; I Peter 1:23-25; and II Timothy 3:16.
But note that Hester also says it is "an act of faith to bring the ancient text to life." One must ask, faith in what? Obviously not in the accuracy of the Bible. Nor in the ability of God to transmit a message untainted by human errors. Hester's faith would appear to be in the power of his own intellect to overcome God's shortcomings!
The attitude, this presumption (in both meanings of the word) is apparent in his statement that fundamentalists "can see no problem in the views of God shaped by a patriarchal society." Our author is saying that the society, contemporary men were speaking about God, rather than God speaking about himself. I suggest that it is Dr. Hester who has the problem, for he "can see no problem in the views of God shaped by an" academic society. If man is the measure, any – literally ANY – notion becomes permissible (Judges 17:6). We see this in the latter section of this passage from Hester.
Consider carefully the implications of Dr. Hester's statement that "because" conservatives have this God-is-the-author orientation three things result: (1) we oppose women's ordination, (2) we do not realize how ancient society skewed the concept of God expressed in the Bible, and (3) we make no allowance for the difference between homosexual acts and homosexuality as a "gender orientation." Guess what? He's right – in one sense anyway.
Exactly because conservatives believe the Bible is the Word of God, that He so controlled its composition that it expresses fully and accurately the message He wished to convey, we do try to follow and put into action what God has said in His book. If the Bible said women could be ordained, we would approve that practice without reservation, but because as Hester implicitly acknowledges the Bible forbids ordination of women, we are bound by God to oppose it.
On his second point, he is also correct, though I would put it even more forcefully. It is not merely that we "can see no problem" with applying the biblical text written in an ancient society, we positively assert that God framed the message in such a way that it will endure for all time. We deny Hester's assumption (and it is only an assumption) that that society "shaped" the views of God expressed in the Bible. To the contrary, God broke in upon that society and led chosen men to set forth His character in exactly the way He in His omniscience and omnipotence knew was best. Again, see II Peter 1:21.
Though Hester may well not realize the implications of his position, the god he conceives MUST be either limited in knowledge and/or power (that is, not omniscient and/or omnipotent) or Hester's god just does not care enough about humanity to bring about an infallible Book. Neither of these possible gods is the God of the Bible. Hester has, I fear, succumbed to one of the most ancient of Satan's delusions ... to create God in his own image.
On his third point regarding the difference between homosexual acts and homosexual "gender orientation," Hester is wrong on at least two counts. First, homosexuality as "gender orientation" is propaganda pure and simple. There is no reliable scientific support for genetic homosexuality. One or two studies reputedly indicate a genetic factor, but those couple of studies have been conducted by homosexuals or homosexual sympathizers. No reputable scientist has come to such conclusions.
But second, even were a genetic factor to be proven, it is the acts not the "orientation" which the Bible condemns. Various people may be said with considerable accuracy to have a predisposition, an "orientation," to each major sin: fornication, adultery, alcohol, drugs, lying, theft, violence, anger, et cetera. God does not condemn us for predispositions but for failing to turn from our predispositions to accept the free grace and gift of God. "Be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind." Romans 12:2.
Conservatives owe the liberal publishing house Smyth & Helwys a vote of gratitude for printing Servant Songs. Coming from an impeccably liberal firm and each chapter written by a different member of the preconservative Southeastern faculty, the book can never be accused of being conservative misinformation, yet it is a lucid presentation of the problems with the seminary which so disturbed conservatives. It is highly recommended reading.