I am still chewing on this - you've said quite a bit. I'll provide a partial response here.
You moved me to look up inerrancy v. infallibility. I had thought they were the same, but I see that religion theorists make a distinction. Inerrancy means that everything Biblical is defined as true, including the bits that fly in the face of living practice.
Infallibility is defined as accepting the Bible as true "in faith and practice", allowing one to treat the less fact-friendly bits as metaphoric. You've shown me that Gaskell fits into this category. I hadn't realized that he was so hardcore, and while I do not enthusiastically support the non-hirers' decision or method, I have a bit more perspective now.
I think where you and I have a different approach is in the application of reason. I agree that reason allows one to put paid to inerrancy. As for infallibility, it becomes a matter of degree, and what we'll call being a Christian. Christians liberal enough to have a place in their minds for science andor logic are automatically disqualified in your analysis, as you indicate by calling infallibility a "cheap new-age trick" if I am quoting correctly. Personally I see humor in my perception here: that you as a most outspoken opponent of the church is also one of its stricter doctrinal wardens! While I cannot fault your analysis if I accept your premise that a christian is beholden to "the word, the whole word, nothing but the word", I see that attitude as fatal to religion. It denies it the privilege of evolving beyond a dusty and troubled book. I would leave that privilege intact with the benign detachment of one who doesn't have a dog in this race. |
