Ironic Faith

I agree, "The Divine Embrace" is a masterful work on spirituality. It will be eye opening.

www.matthewsblog.waynesborochurchofchrist.org

It seems to me that it is not texts, like the Bible, that are, or can be, "inerrant". Only interpretations can, or can't, be "inerrant". After all to say that a text is inerrant is to suppose that first of all that there is only one legitimate way to read it, and that it is possible to get behind the text and into the mind of the author. Which leads to my biggest issue with the idea of inerrancy: it is often simply a power-play that really means "my interpretation is inerrant". Most of us have heard people say "You don't have an argue with me, you have an argument with the Bible", which exemplifies this kind of use of the doctrine. Of course once you realize that texts can't be inerrant, that only interpretations can be, it leaves the question how can you determine what an inerrant interpretation is? From there you quickly realize that you can't tell, there are no trumpets that sound when one arrives at the "inerrant" interpretation, no writing in the sky to tell us which one is "the" right one.

In short, asking whether the Bible is "inerrant" doesn't even make sense as a question.

Scott,
I realize this comment line has run its course, but perhaps you'll at least see this.
Thank you for your response, and I take your point: there is no literal reference to systemic injustice or non-violence in the literal words of institution of the Lord's Supper. I'd love to read your book on _A Community called Atonement_ as it seems you more or less fully explored the cosmic implications of the reconciling work of Christ. No doubt there is more to the "Atonement" of the Cross in the NT than captured in Girardian thought, and more the "Emergent" can say about forgiveness through the cross of Christ. Nevertheless, I still think "the more" that God truly intends for all of creation is included in Jesus' and the Apostles' words regarding "covenant," "new covenant," and the fullness of the meaning even Jesus intended when referring to "ransom," specifically in the texts of The Lord's Supper. You have, no doubt, argued for a broad if not universal conception of the significance and meaning of "God's Kingdom." Surely Jesus intended more than just a community of forgiven people when he spoke of The New Covenant in His blood. Surely he understood more fully than Paul all that he would eventually "ransom" from captivity to sin and the bondage of death. I realize that your intention is probably more or less parallel to mine in this, but perhaps even those particular "constitutional" words bear greater freight than commonly supposed, or that your comments about them suggested.
All the best to those in Christ,
Richard W. Wilson