Disadvantage of Inerrancy #2

It encourages us to see the bible as primary truth.

I agree with John Francke that theology is a second order discipline. That means that it is a process of reflection rather than observation. Science is more about the observable. Theology is about the unobservable.

I would go further and say that the bible is a second order text. Inspired but reflective. It captures observation and constructs a reflective story.

The driving values of inerrancy are to counter scientific argument against religion however to attempt to construct a set of first order observations about a reflective text is total nonsense. In the extreme.

It leads us to deny the empirical. It leads us to spend enormous amounts of intellectual energy creating systems of thought, which is no mean task, centred around a poem. There is no reflective truth. Reflection is conjecture. And as the domain of the empirical expands the reflective must yield ground. However it must also hold its boundaries against unmerited attack from those observers who desire power. Policy must be informed from both perspectives.

The bible is one supreme example of how to reflect in a manner that is sympathetic to our humanity, to creation and to the infinite and eternal. Biblical reflection is example of best practice though clearly uninformed by our current domain of knowledge. Let us instead of trying to assert the infinite bounds of our observation on the bibical reflection let us be aware of these differences and follow the example of the biblical writers in practising good reflection.