Comrades-in-arms

I'm noticing the potential convergence of what had been two distinct theological groups. There's already a conceptual convergence. 

For convenience, let's call the first group progressive evangelicals. When evangelicals move to the left, it's usually a two-step process. They begin by saying this is a question of interpretation rather than inerrancy. They become irate if you accuse them of denying inerrancy. "How dare you equate your interpretation of Scripture with inerrancy! Just because we disagree with your interpretation doesn't mean we deny the inerrancy of Scripture. Don't be so arrogant!"

But, of late, progressive evangelicals are ditching that face-saving distinction. They admit the Bible is mistaken in some of what it teaches. Three of the hot-button issues are homosexuality, the historicity of Adam, and the OT "genocidal" commands. 

But the list can include other things. They may ax the historicity of the Exodus, or say Paul was a child of his times on the subject of male headship. And so on and so forth.

All these disparate issues are symptomatic of a common underlying issue: the authority of Scripture. They reject the authority of Scripture. 

Basically, they distinguish between the essential and inessential teachings of Scripture. They say you can reject what the Bible teaches about homosexuality, Adam and Eve, "genocidal commands," the Exodus, &c., and still be a faithful Christian, because these aren't Christian essentials. 

Their position is simplicity itself: Whatever Biblical teachings they reject are, by definition, inessential. Their very rejection automatically demotes the offending doctrine to the dustbin of inessentials. 

So this group is already center-left on the ethical, political, and theological spectrum. I can't help noticing how this seems to coincide with the Obama presidency. Apparently, progressive evangelicals feel the current cultural milieu makes it safe for them to come out of hiding.

In a way, this is a refreshing development. They drop the pretense of publicly maintaining a position (inerrancy) which hitherto they privately denied. Now they've come clean. 

On a related note, I'm struck by how quickly John Walton's view of Gen 1 garnered a following. There was an instant audience for his treatment. Like a neglected market niche. Progressive evangelicals who were just waiting for his interpretation to come along to justify their preexisting unease with Gen 1. 

It reminds me of how little resistance there was to Darwin's Origin of Species. If Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually satisfied atheist, Walton made it possible to be an intellectually satisfied progressive evangelical.

Many old-earth creationists, and even a few theistic evolutionists (e.g. Warfield) are committed to the inerrancy of Scripture. Their interpretation of Gen 1 is consistent with the inerrancy of Gen 1. 

What makes Walton's approach different is that it erases the distinction between interpretation and inerrancy, for his interpretation commits him to the errancy of Gen 1. On his view, God accommodated the narrator's obsolete understanding of the cosmos. God did not correct the narrator's erroneous viewpoint. What the narrator purports to be the case is false. So on his interpretation, Gen 1 is simply false in that respect.

Now let's compare all this with the second group. We might call them Resurrection apologists. 

Needless to say, Christian apologists have always defended the Resurrection. That goes without saying. But a more recent development is using the Resurrection to defend Christianity in general. They treat the Resurrection as both the theological and apologetical linchpin of Christianity. 

To my knowledge, John Warwick Montgomery initiated this trend. Other apologists followed suit.

This is related to a "minimal facts" approach. To some extent I think the "minimal facts" approach was originally adapted to the time-limits of a live, public, formal debate. But it's taken on a life of its own.

On this methodology, an apologist brackets the inspiration of Scripture and treats the NT like any other ancient historical source. He defends the basic reliability of the relevant NT passages which witness to the Resurrection. 

This apologetic strategy is spawning a corresponding theological posture, in which you distinguish between essential doctrines like the Resurrection and inessential doctrines like inerrancy. On this view, if the Resurrection never happened, Christianity would be false–but if the Exodus never happened, Christianity would still be true. If the tomb wasn't empty on Easter, Christianity would be false–but if Adam never existed, Christianity would still be true. 

Now, unlike progressive evangelicals, Resurrection apologists are center-right on the theological spectrum. Yet their fallback position on inerrancy is pretty much interchangeable with the position of progressive evangelicals. The main difference is that, at least for now, the rejection of inerrancy by Resurrection apologists is still hypothetical, whereas progressive evangelicals actually and openly reject it.

But both groups already distinguish between essential and inessential Biblical teachings. In principle (or practice), a faithful Christian can disregard inessential Biblical teachings. And I don't see any appreciable difference in the examples which both groups use to illustrate inessential Biblical doctrines. Both groups could draw up the same list. At least, their respective lists would overlap to a very considerable degree. 

Although the Resurrection apologists still espouse inerrancy, it's unclear how they can maintain a stable distinction between progressive evangelicals and themselves. There no longer seems to be a fundamental distinction in principle. Perhaps the only difference is that they disagree on whether or not Scripture has actually crossed the threshold of error. But that's not a make-or-break issue for Resurrection apologists. They don't have a major stake in the outcome of that debate.  

These two groups arrived that their respective positions independently of each other, yet their respective positions are conceptually convergent. For both, the authority of Scripture is expendable.