How seminaries die

Randal Rauser recently applied for tenure at Taylor Seminary. And obvious problem is that Rauser’s rejection of Biblical inerrancy contradicts Taylor’s statement of faith:

We believe the Bible is God's Word given by divine inspiration, the record of God's revelation of Himself to humanity (II Timothy 3:16). It is trustworthy, sufficient, without error - the supreme authority and guide for all doctrine and conduct (I Peter 1:23-25; John 17:17; II Timothy 3:16-17).

http://www.taylor-edu.ca/about/doctrine.htm

Here are some verbatim excerpts documenting his denial of Biblical inerrancy:

Why think that every single authorial sentence in scripture must be inerrant to begin with? If the human authors of scripture could appropriate the morally errant statements of others in their texts, why think that God couldn’t appropriate the morally errant statements of the human authors of scripture in his text?

http://randalrauser.com/2011/06/can-n-t-wright-save-paul-the-apostle/

A person can say that God superintended a process which led to the inclusion of any number of human errors in the text but that God did so with perfect (i.e. inerrant) intentions. By analogy: an author might include all sorts of factual errors in his novel as uttered by the characters within the novel. Though the statements of the characters are in error, the author inerrantly included them in the novel. So all the criticisms I've raised are consistent with a broad confession of inerrancy.

http://randalrauser.com/2011/04/affirming-implying-and-inerrancy/#comment-577977936

And anyway what is supposed to be inerrant? Are scientific statements in scripture inerrant? Historical statements? Can a writing be pseudopigraphic and inerrant? Or must we say II Peter was written by Peter? Is a human author of scripture allowed to be ironic? (I.e. can he say the opposite of what he means to make a point?) This is the way many people read much of a text like Ecclesiastes. Even if the human author or redactor was not being ironic, could God have been? (This is one way to redeem the imprecatory psalms.)

That is the kind of attitude I commend toward scripture. There could be errors of grammar (indeed there are), as well as history, science and even morality. In the same way that we could in principle allow such errors in a masterfully composed classic text like Ulysses, so it would seem we could in principle allow such errors in scripture, so long as there is some reason that the author allowed those errors to enter into the final form of the text. Consequently, the reader’s task is not to edit the book into the form he likes, or to ignore the parts she doesn’t like, but rather to work on those errant bits which seem recalcitrant to the reader’s understanding of the logic of the whole.

http://randalrauser.com/2011/04/inerrancy-how-to-save-a-lost-concept-by-comparing-the-bible-to-ulysses/

If I were to summarize the problem with GBB in a single sentence it would be this: in multiple instances the book’s defense of God’s behavior depends at least in part on obscuring the depth of the problem at issue. Whether the issue is punishing an entire nation for the sins of its leaders or committing genocide or causing the mauling of youthful tormenters, Lamb’s defense depends on multiple arguments with implausible moral premises which obscure the nature of the issue of debate.

http://randalrauser.com/2012/11/how-good-is-god-behaving-badly-a-review/

But the text is still deeply problematic for it still affirms the appropriateness of sacrifice as a means to relate to God (presumably including human sacrifice; more on that below) and it also affirms the appropriateness of asking a father to commit a truly heinous act.

As for Abraham specifically, if it is intrinsically wrong to engage in an act, then it seems also intrinsically wrong to ask a person to commit the act, even if your intention is ultimately that they not perform the action. For example if rape is intrinsically wrong then it is wrong to ask somebody to rape a third party, even if your ultimate intention is that they not do so. I think the intuition is very strong that it is inherently wrong to engage in acts of devotional killing of one's child to a deity. But then it is wrong for a third party -- even if that party is God -- to ask a person to engage in that action, even if God intended ultimately that they not follow through with it.

http://randalrauser.com/2011/04/is-god-a-moral-monster-a-review-part-2/

It is precisely at this point that many Christian conservatives have done the Bible a great disservice by thinking that recognizing the inspired authority of scripture means that we need to accept the truth of every proposition uttered by every human author and approved by every human redactor in the long history of the text’s formation. But that is not the way to read a text or its authority. To note the illustration I have made previously, you don’t respect the authority of The Brothers Karamazov by attempting to affirm the equal truth of every statement by every character in the book. Ivan’s atheism is irreconcilable with Alyosha’s Christian piety. And yet this conflict hardly means that Dostoevsky was somehow inept in including both voices in his book.

By the same token, the Christian should not attempt to reconcile irreconcilable voices in scripture. And much of what the imprecatory psalmist says is irreconcilable with other texts in scripture

So just as the reader of The Brothers Karamazov must choose whether to heed the voice of Ivan or of Alyosha, so must the reader of scripture choose whether to heed the voice of the psalmist or Ezekiel and Jesus.

http://randalrauser.com/2010/10/how-to-hate-your-enemies-lessons-from-the-psalms-part-3/

However, Rauser has been able to play the administration (e.g. Pres. David Williams) for chumps. This is one way seminaries die. The administration either lacks the will or the theological discernment to enforce its public doctrinal standards.

Of course, when con men like Rauser game the system, that’s a pyrrhic victory. They win in the short term. But unlike seminary administrators who are easily duped by slick talkers, Rauser won’t be able to con God on Judgment Day.