The first of the objections to inerrancy in my previous post was the subjectivism that comes with dethroning biblical authority. The charge I had always used to myself (and, maybe, to others) was that this would result in a gradual drift away from objectivity and an increasing marginalisation of core evangelical doctrine. Crucially, it would undermine the Bible’s ability to judge and challenge one’s views and practices.

But a counter-charge that began to hit me with some force is that I was already allowing other factors to influence how I read the Bible – whether I read a passage literally or not, whether I concluded a doctrinal teaching was cultural or foundational. For instance, my theological emphases (e.g. penal substitution, salvation by faith not works, eternal judgement) meant that I deprecated any biblical emphasis on ‘good works’, justice and stewardship and focused on any emphasis on faith, doctrine and heaven rather than earth.

It became clearer that there is no objective, privileged position from which to pronounce the true meaning of Scripture. Whether or not I said that the whole Bible was God’s Word, the fact was that I reverenced certain parts more than others. I liked Paul’s letters; I didn’t really like James’ or John’s. I wouldn’t say that I only accepted the parts I agreed with – I still wanted the Bible to challenge my preconceptions. But I was already subjectively reading Scripture, cherry-picking the important elements to focus on.

The parallel concern that was growing uncomfortably in my mind was the clash between Jesus and the scribes and Pharisees. The latter were also preoccupied with conserving religious tradition, gold-plating the Torah and yet, in Jesus’ eyes, failing to represent the heart of ‘true religion’. It is possible to have a great doctrine of Scripture and yet to grossly misread it. I felt that I could no longer rely on my hermeneutical method to assure me that I was not committing the same grave error.