About eighteen twenty months ago I published an article at the The Gospel Coalition entitled, “Updating the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy: A Proposal.” The article was adapted from my dissertation “A Theological Reassessment and Reformulation of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy in Light of Contemporary Developments.” The article, like my dissertation, focused on the CSBI’s nineteen articles of affirmation and denial, offering modifications to existing articles and proposing some new articles.

The same day the article was published at TGC, Dr. Bill Roach posted a video on his YouTube channel critiquing my article and challenging the very idea of updating the CSBI. A few days later, I posted a written response to Roach’s video on this website.

After some brief exchanges on Twitter, the dialog ended and we both went about our business.

About a month ago, Clay Sidenbender interviewed me on his Inerrant Word podcast. In that interview, Clay asked me specifically about my proposal to update the CSBI. Shortly after that interview posted, Roach responded with another video. This blog post is a response to Roach’s most recent video.

Much to Appreciate
This response is going to be much shorter than my last response, and mainly positive. I will begin by saying that there was much I appreciated in Roach’s most recent video. As I listened to the video (as I walked back and forth from my hotel room to the convention center in San Antonio while at the ETS annual meeting!), I found myself often nodding in agreement with points he made and finding myself edified by much of what he had to say.

Specifically, I think Roach is right to warn evangelical scholars of the allure of so-called academic credibility and the temptation to seek one’s own glory through scholarship instead of laboring for the glory of God and the benefit of the church. I happily join him in delivering this warning, and I encourage him to keep sounding this warning as much as he can.

I remember distinctly when first reading Geisler and Roach’s book Defending Inerrancy being deeply moved by Geisler’s counsel at the end of the book. He was saying something that few academicians would dare even say for fear of sounding “unscholarly” or “unsophisticated.” But he was right.

My academic advice has not changed. How can good, godly, and scholarly persons avoid the pitfalls of adopting philosophies that undermine the historic evangelical stand on inerrancy? My advice is the same: (1) Avoid the desire to become a famous scholar; (2) Avoid the temptation to be unique; (3) Do not dance on the edges; (4) Steer right to go straight; (5) Do not trade orthodoxy for academic respectability; (6) Reject any methodological inconsistency with the Bible or good reason.

My spiritual advice still holds when there is a conflict: (1) Always choose lordship over scholarship; (2) Do not allow morality to determine methodology. (3) Do not allow sincerity to be a test of orthodoxy. I would also add two more: (4) Do not choose fraternity over orthodoxy. (5) Do not choose unity over orthodoxy. Of course, often both terms of these pairs are possible, but in the final analysis, it is better to be divided by the truth than to be united by error.

Norman L. Geisler and William C. Roach, Defending Inerrancy (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011), 344.

This is good advice that I pray I will be faithful to keep throughout my pastoral and academic life. It resonated with me then and it resonates with me today, so I appreciate Roach’s warning in this latest video to beware of the pursuit of so-called “academic respectability” and the pursuit of fame in the guild. Andy Naselli offers a similar warning with some positive counsel in his excellent article, “Three Reflections on Academic Publishing.” Naselli uses John A. D’Elia’s A Place at the Table (the biography of George Ladd that Roach mentions in his video) to underscore that God-centered, church-strengthening motives must permeate all evangelical scholarship. Ladd didn’t appear to work from these Christ-exalting motives, and it cost him dearly.

I also appreciate that Roach made a good-faith effort to distinguish me from other scholars who want to update the CSBI or write a new statement in order to get around the original CSBI. Throughout his video he still critiqued me and my ideas (which he is entitled to do and I don’t despise him for it—we are talking about serious issues), but I am grateful that he distanced me from those who are presently unwilling to embrace the original CSBI without reservation but who still want to revise it. As I mentioned in my first response, the reason I built off the CSBI in my dissertation is because I want to remain in the CSBI “tradition.” I don’t want to go “beyond” the CSBI. If I have gone beyond the CSBI in the sense that I have compromised the biblical doctrine of inerrancy (not just added what some deem unnecessary modifications to the CSBI), then please feel free to correct, rebuke, and critique me, and call me away from “the edges.”

Regarding the “intent” of the CSBI framers, I do not merely mean “mood.” I agree that such a claim to remain within the “intent” (i.e. “mood”) of the authors is nebulous and leaves the door wide open for all kinds of departures from inerrancy. I mean I don’t want to go beyond what the framers meant by what they wrote and the doctrine of inerrancy they articulated in the CSBI. But the problem may simply be that I’ve argued for an updating of the CSBI rather than writing a new statement, and Roach views an update as de facto “going beyond” the CSBI. I’m not convinced of this yet, but I will continue to think about it.

On Updating the CSBI
The latter hour of Roach’s video was primarily his argument for why we shouldn’t revise the CSBI (he made this section of his first video a separate video that you can watch here). Frankly, I don’t disagree with much of his argument in that section regarding the question of revising the CSBI. Roach says that the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy (ICBI) was a specific group formed for a specific purpose that cannot be reconstituted, especially now that all the original founders have died. There is a historic integrity to the ICBI and the CSBI that must be respected. I said I thought he was “right” about this in my first response and in my interview with Clay. I think Roach is concerned because I followed up that statement by talking with Clay about my proposals for an updated CSBI! Fair enough!

Perhaps it would be helpful if I went on record saying that I fully agree with Roach that we shouldn’t try to update the CSBI or resurrect the ICBI. It may actually help Roach and me dialog better if I took updating the CSBI completely off the table and instead spoke of what should go into writing a new statement.

On Writing a New Statement
Now, Roach isn’t thrilled about the idea of writing a new statement. Indeed, at the beginning of his video he said that he would rather see more evangelical scholars gladly affirm and work within the parameters CSBI than craft a new document. But I tend to think our dialog would proceed more fruitfully if I backed off from the idea of reformulating the CSBI and instead talked more about what potentially would be needed in a new statement.

But about that new statement. Roach sees the proposal of a new statement on inerrancy fraught with hazards. The question of “who” would be part of crafting this new statement is one of the biggest problems. I agree with him on that. While at ETS I listened to a panel that included William Lane Craig where he discussed and defended his mytho-historical view of Adam and Eve. I reject Craig’s view without qualification (I am a young-earth creationist), and I can’t see how he and I could agree on a statement on inerrancy given our respective views on the book of Genesis and the historicity of Adam and Eve. (Roach has problems with Craig’s view too. Check out his most recent video on this topic here. ) What about Michael Licona? The same problems exist with him, too. Rejecting the historicity of Matthew 27:52-53 is a non-starter for me when it comes to discussing inerrancy.

I believe Roach suggested in his video that one could require good-faith affirmation of the existing CSBI in order to be considered as a candidate to help write a new document on inerrancy. I think this is an excellent idea. For my part, I wouldn’t want to work with someone on a new statement if they couldn’t affirm without reservation the original CSBI.

Roach is also right that I wouldn’t be one of the main people involved in crafting a new statement, and I appreciate his willingness to separate me from those who would come to this discussion from a less conservative position. I hear his point that my desire to keep the statement within certain conservative bounds could very well go unheeded. I need to be wise, not naive.

Will there be a new statement? I don’t know. In the meantime, I am happy to affirm the CSBI, endorse it, use it in my teaching, and mark it as a fixed reference point for what I believe about inerrancy. Perhaps Bill and I can talk about it over a meal sometime.

Bill, if you’re ever in the San Francisco Bay Area, lunch is on me.