Hillsdale College, renowned for its commitment to the liberal arts and rigorous textual analysis, encourages students to engage with diverse perspectives across politics and philosophy. Yet, when it comes to the Bible, particularly narratives like Genesis, a consistent application of these analytical tools is often lacking. This observation, stemming from within the Hillsdale context, highlights a potential disconnect between the college’s broader educational ethos and the approach taken to scripture, often underpinned by an implicit belief in biblical inerrancy. Are we, at institutions like Hillsdale, fully utilizing the critical and interpretive skills honed in the study of literature and history when we approach foundational texts like Genesis?
This exploration is not intended as a dismissal of the Bible’s significance. Instead, by reconsidering the doctrine of factual inerrancy, we can foster a richer, more nuanced understanding of this cornerstone text of Western civilization for contemporary readers. Indeed, recognizing the Bible as divinely inspired does not necessitate a literalist, fact-centric approach. Appreciating the diverse genres, the Bible’s textual development over time, and even apparent internal tensions can deepen our engagement with its profound messages.
For many within conservative Christian circles, especially at institutions dedicated to upholding traditional values, defending biblical inerrancy is seen as crucial—a bulwark against modern skepticism and secularism. This stance insists that the Bible is without error, even in matters of scientific or historical detail. However, this perspective risks mirroring the very modernism it seeks to oppose, inadvertently adopting its epistemological framework.
The rise of modernism, intertwined with the Enlightenment’s emphasis on individual reason and scientific advancement, fostered a worldview that prioritized empirical, verifiable facts. The scientific revolution, spearheaded by figures like Newton, instilled confidence in the universe’s comprehensibility through fixed, universal laws. Modernist thought aimed to reduce phenomena to objective, scientific facts, presented as the ultimate form of reliable truth. This reductionist approach often led to the rejection of concepts like free will, divine existence, and anything beyond the grasp of the scientific method. When historical criticism began to reveal the Bible’s complex textual history, including redaction, anachronisms, and potentially non-historical elements, modernists concluded that Christian faith was incompatible with “the facts,” dismissing narratives like Genesis as mere mythology, supplanted by scientific theories like evolution. The assertive atheism exemplified by figures like Richard Dawkins reflects this confidence in a fact-based, scientifically derived worldview.
Conservative Christian responses to this modernist challenge centered on a vigorous defense of the Bible’s historical accuracy and the foundational tenets of Christian belief. This counter-movement culminated in documents like the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, which affirmed that “Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God’s acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God.” The motivation was clear: to safeguard biblical authority, perceived as being “inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded.” Prominent conservative theologians and intellectuals such as R.C. Sproul, J.I. Packer, and Francis Schaeffer endorsed this statement, aiming to construct a defense against the perceived tide of modernism.
However, in embracing inerrancy so emphatically, evangelicalism arguably adopted a modernist epistemology in a different guise. Instead of scientific fact as the ultimate authority, biblical revelation, interpreted literally, became the infallible guide to understanding the universe. Just as reductionists championed the scientific method as the key to all truth, proponents of inerrancy posited Scripture, read literally, as unlocking propositional knowledge of the world. This approach contrasts sharply with pre-modern understandings that viewed the world through the lens of living tradition, replacing it with a modernist perspective that sought to decipher reality as a system through a supposedly timeless and perfect tool – the inerrant Bible. C.S. Lewis aptly described the temptation to view Scripture as “an unrefracted light giving us ultimate truth in systematic form—something we could have tabulated and memorised and relied on like the multiplication table”.
Historically, within the broader Christian tradition, the Bible has functioned more as a narrative of God’s interaction with humanity, a record of a developing relationship. Recognizing the historical unfolding of this relationship protected Scripture from becoming a static, monolithic guide to all aspects of reality.
Yet, in the pursuit of inerrancy, this dynamic understanding of Scripture has been often traded for a reading that demands perfect consistency and factual accuracy throughout the biblical texts. While this adoption of the modernist “enemy’s” epistemology may create a seemingly clear-cut intellectual battleground, it comes at a significant cost.
The richness inherent in the Bible’s diverse literary genres is often diminished in the drive to maintain internal consistency and literal factual truth. Modernist thought typically equates a narrative’s validity with its adherence to objective “facts,” as if such a purely objective, unbiased representation of reality were even attainable or desirable. A liberal arts education, like that offered at Hillsdale, aims to demonstrate that various disciplines provide distinct yet valuable perspectives on our complex reality. Poetry, for example, often prioritizes evocative language and emotional resonance over strict factual precision, yet it can convey profound truths. Biblical inerrancy, in its emphasis on literalism, can inadvertently discourage this appreciation for genre, urging us to treat all biblical texts as if they were scientific reports or historical chronicles. Instead of exploring the nuanced ways in which the Genesis narrative engages with and transforms Mesopotamian creation myths, inerrantists often prioritize seeking scientific validation for this poetic account. Similarly, rather than appreciating the Book of Revelation’s message of hope and resilience for early Christians facing Roman persecution, inerrantist readings often focus on deciphering a literal roadmap of future geopolitical events. Such rigid interpretations would be considered misinterpretations when applied to any other texts studied within a liberal arts curriculum.
Furthermore, the internal dialogue within the Bible itself is often muted in the pursuit of a single, unified voice of propositional truth. The Bible is not a monolithic, seamless narrative; it is a collection of diverse texts produced across centuries, reflecting a range of perspectives and evolving understandings. Instead of acknowledging and exploring the differing creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2, for example, inerrantist interpretations often resort to complex hermeneutical maneuvers, like reinterpreting verb tenses, to force a superficial coherence that aligns with a scientific explanation of origins. The very existence of contradictions and variations within Scripture points to its nature as an ongoing conversation among God’s people about their relationship with the divine. Consider the contrasting views on interactions with foreigners in the Old Testament: the Book of Ezra portrays harsh consequences for marrying foreign women, while the Book of Ruth celebrates a love story involving a Moabite woman who becomes an ancestor of King David. The Mosaic law prescribed “an eye for an eye,” yet Jesus challenged this principle, advocating for a higher ethic of forgiveness and non-retaliation. Similarly, the Pentateuch exhibits a more ethnically exclusive focus compared to later prophetic books like Jonah, which extends God’s compassion even to Israel’s enemies. A Hillsdale education should encourage students to analyze such textual variations and subtle shifts in emphasis, rather than attempting to harmonize them into a single, consistent doctrinal statement. To smooth over these inherent tensions and diverse voices is to diminish the richness and complexity of the biblical tapestry, obscuring the progressive development of faith and understanding within the people of God. These apparent contradictions are not flaws to be corrected but rather evidence of the Bible’s human dimension, its grounding in history and lived experience. Attempting to force complete consistency risks sacrificing the unique flavor and beauty of individual biblical threads and the overall tapestry they create.
By prioritizing inerrancy, particularly alongside a literalist hermeneutic, many Christians have inadvertently distanced themselves from the broader heritage of Christian tradition. Many inerrantists might find the allegorical interpretations of figures like Augustine, Origen, or the Greek Fathers unsettling. While these earlier theologians might not have explicitly stated that the Bible contained “errors” in a modern sense, they certainly did not approach Scripture through a modernist lens focused on historical and scientific accuracy. Instead, they often employed allegorical interpretation, creatively exploring the text for deeper spiritual and theological insights, seeking fresh ways to hear God’s voice within its narratives. Biblical inerrancy, in its emphasis on self-evident literal meaning, can render the consultation of tradition seemingly less necessary. Why engage with the interpretations of fallible human beings across history when one possesses a perfect, self-explanatory guide to all of reality? However, this dismissal of tradition arguably contributes to the intellectual and historical thinness observed in some segments of modern evangelicalism, a consequence of adopting a modernist view of scripture.
Furthermore, biblical inerrancy can create tension with modern scholarship. This doctrine can place Christians in awkward positions when confronted with scientific and historical evidence that seems to challenge literal interpretations. Regardless of the conclusions one might draw from scientific evidence related to evolution, for instance, strict inerrantists may feel compelled to reject any interpretation that appears to contradict a literal reading of Genesis. This environment can be unconducive to open inquiry and the “pursuit of truth.” When the entirety of Christian faith is perceived as staked on the literal truth of every biblical statement, even minor historical or scientific discrepancies can feel existentially threatening. However, the enduring value and profound insights of Shakespeare’s historical plays are not diminished by historical inaccuracies. We do not judge Shakespeare’s genius based on factual errors; yet, this is often the standard implicitly applied to the biblical text within inerrantist frameworks. This pressure to defend the Bible against perceived challenges leads to an overemphasis on apologetics, often diverting attention from other crucial aspects of biblical study and faith. The Bible, in this context, is no longer allowed to speak for itself on its own terms; it is forced into a role as a perfect propositional guide, a function for which it was never intended.
These consequences contribute to a situation where young Christians, particularly those in academic settings, are presented with a version of Christianity that can be difficult to defend intellectually. While biblical inerrancy may find support within environments like Hillsdale College, which are generally sympathetic to evangelical faith, students will encounter vastly different perspectives in graduate studies or the wider world. When confronted with the challenges of modern scholarship, the inerrantist worldview often elicits one of two responses: either a doubling down on defensive literalism and a rejection of historical and literary analysis, or a sudden and destabilizing crisis of faith. Institutions like Hillsdale should be environments where students are encouraged to critically examine and even challenge their faith, fostering intellectual and spiritual growth, rather than setting them up for either intellectual retreat or faith crises when confronted with broader academic discourse.
Biblical inerrancy, as often practiced, can make the Bible an exception to the very principles of textual interpretation that are valued within a liberal arts education. Inerrantists, in their pursuit of absolute certainty, may inadvertently set an impossibly high bar for truth, one that even the most profound texts in human history cannot meet. This places believers in a perpetual defensive posture, constantly attempting to defend faith on modernist, fact-centric terrain. Even C.S. Lewis, a revered figure within Protestant intellectual circles and often admired at Hillsdale, recognized the limitations of “biblical inerrancy,” stating:
The human qualities of the raw materials show through. Naïvety, error, contradiction, even (as in the cursing Psalms) wickedness are not removed. The total result is not “the Word of God” in the sense that every passage, in itself, gives impeccable science or history. It carries the Word of God.
While this discussion has focused on what the Bible is not—not a flawless, literal guidebook—understanding these limitations opens the door to a more profound engagement with the text. Lewis understood this, arguing that precisely because Scripture is vital and true, we must employ every tool at our disposal to study it with intellectual honesty and rigor:
We (under grace, with attention to tradition and to interpreters wiser than ourselves, and with the use of such intelligence and learning as we may have) receive that word from it not by using it as an encyclopedia or an encyclical but by steeping ourselves in its tone or temper and so learning its overall message.
That “overall message” emerges not through forced harmonization and literalistic rigidity, but through engaging with the contradictions, the dialogues, and the diverse genres that biblical inerrancy often obscures.
As students committed to the pursuit of truth within the framework of the Great Tradition, we recognize the value of engaging with complex and sometimes challenging dialogues. It would be regrettable if, in our approach to the Bible, we allowed concepts like biblical inerrancy to prevent us from fully utilizing the literary and historical tools we have diligently cultivated. Therefore, let us heed Lewis’s wisdom and consider the possibility that the Bible, including foundational narratives like Genesis, is not primarily a timeless, error-free manual of factual certainty. Instead, it is something deeper and more transformative: a record of humanity wrestling with the divine, a collection of competing narratives and voices through which the voice of God emerges, inviting us into a richer understanding of truth and beauty. It is in this dynamic, often messy, but ultimately inspired dialogue that we can truly learn from Genesis and the entirety of Scripture.
