EVANGELICALS, INERRANCY, AND THE QUEST FOR CERTAINTY: MAKING SENSE OF OUR BATTLES FOR THE BIBLE Dissertation Submitted to The Department of Religious Studies of the UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for The Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Theology By Jason A. Hentschel UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON Dayton, Ohio December, 2015 i EVANGELICALS, INERRANCY, AND THE QUEST FOR CERTAINTY: MAKING SENSE OF OUR BATTLES FOR THE BIBLE Name: Hentschel, Jason Ashley APPROVED BY: ____________________________________________ William V. Trollinger, Ph.D. Faculty Advisor ____________________________________________ Brad J. Kallenberg, Ph.D. Faculty Reader ____________________________________________ William L. Portier, Ph.D. Faculty Reader ____________________________________________ Anthony B. Smith, Ph.D. Faculty Reader ____________________________________________ Peter J. Thuesen, Ph.D. Outside Reader ii © Copyright by Jason Ashley Hentschel All rights reserved 2015 iii ABSTRACT EVANGELICALS, INERRANCY, AND THE QUEST FOR CERTAINTY: MAKING SENSE OF OUR BATTLES FOR THE BIBLE Name: Hentschel, Jason Ashley University of Dayton Advisor: Dr. William V. Trollinger, Jr. This dissertation seeks to understand and evaluate the hermeneutical logic and apologetic mentality behind American evangelicalism’s appeal to biblical inerrancy during its twentieth- and twenty-first-century battles for the Bible. In nuanced agreement with Christian Smith’s charge that evangelicalism’s pervasive interpretive pluralism renders appeals to biblical inerrancy meaningless, I argue that what drives the perpetuation of such appeals is a fundamental desire for epistemic certainty in the face of what is perceived to be a devastating subjectivism. This is a certainty said to be obtained and maintained by an oversimplified conception of sola scriptura and a biblical hermeneutic replete with modernistic assumptions about textual objectivity and the effects of history and tradition upon interpretation. After attending to the intersection of the hermeneutical theory of Hans-Georg Gadamer with those of high-profile evangelicals James Packer and Clark Pinnock, I propose the adoption of a more community-centered iv conception of biblical authority alongside a rehabilitation of faith as trust in God’s own faithfulness. v For my mother – whose countless conversations with me, most unknown to her, made this not only possible but also worthwhile. vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This dissertation, like many of its fellows, is the labor and sacrifice of many. My wife Sara left family, friends, and a wonderful job to move to Ohio, and she never once doubted the decision. Without her unfailing graciousness and support, these past six years would have been a lot less fun and immeasurably less productive. The same can – and should – be said for our daughter Emma, whose dogged presence at the window waiting for me to come home always reminded me of why I was writing. As for the topic itself, without Beth Allison Barr’s generous invitation to present an early version of chapter two, this dissertation would never have taken the form it did, to its detriment. The invitation by Art Farnsley, Philip Goff, and Peter Thuesen to present a later version of that chapter at the Bible in American Life Conference generated further critique and led to the chapter’s publication in a condensed form. Parts of chapter three also found their beginnings as papers given at the Conference on Faith and History’s 2014 meeting at Pepperdine and the 2015 gathering of the Theologians of Ohio here in Dayton. Since I am on the topic of chapter three, let me thank Danny Hays and Scott Duvall, who coauthored the hermeneutics textbook on which I was trained, and Preben Vang for the actual training. Whatever criticisms I have of that book are at the same time indebted to it. Two other chapters first took shape as term papers, and so are the products of not a few discussions during and after class. In particular, Bill Portier’s insistence that I get to vii a beach and read Gadamer was the genesis of my hermeneutical critique, and without Brad Kallenberg’s drawings of mental baseball cards and constant reminders that I was thinking like a typical modern, I would still be lost in the nuances of Thomas Reid. Jason Heron, Robert and Julia Parks, Katherine Schmidt, Laurie Eloe, and Drew Courter, all colleagues of mine at the University of Dayton, also deserve thanks for serving as sounding boards throughout this project. More than sounding boards, however, were Lucas Martin and Colin McGuigan. Besides their invaluable criticism throughout, I could not ask for two better friends. A few other sources of insight along the way require mention. Many Sunday mornings I would enter worship swimming in a jumble of thoughts only to have Rod Kennedy hand me that one link in the chain which would fit everything together. I only regret that whenever this happened, I usually ignored the rest of the sermon as I hurriedly scribbled notes on the back of bulletins and offering cards. Stylistically, I learned how to ask good questions from reading the works of Peter Thuesen and taking courses from Tony Smith. To have both on my committee has been a joy and an honor. Research is rarely an individual affair. Lolana Thompson at Dallas Theological Seminary’s Mosher Library welcomed me warmly to the school’s archives. Her knowledgeable guidance, regarding both the collection and good places for lunch, was instrumental in my research into the ICBI. I look forward to continuing my work there. At Dayton’s Roesch Library, Chris Tangeman located not a few exceptionally obscure books and in doing so quite simply made this project possible. The same must be said for the three King James Only churches I visited in Dayton. These congregations and their pastors are some of the warmest and most generous people I have met and with which I viii have had the pleasure of worshipping. Whatever criticisms I have of their positions, it would be shameful to forget their genuine warmth and earnestness. A good portion of my research was funded by the University of Dayton’s Graduate School through the Graduate Student Summer Fellowship and by the American Baptist Churches Doctoral Grant. I would also like to thank in this regard Tony Smith, Bill Portier, and whoever else was on the department’s admissions committee (we were never told) for taking a chance on a Baptist from Texas who wanted to do work on evangelicalism. Paula Braley, a wonderful writer and former student of mine, edited the entire draft and kept me caffeinated that last year of writing. Amber McGuigan and Emily Martin more than generously watched Emma, giving me time to write during the dissertation’s final stages. Jule Rastikis, Scott Sholiton, and Dave Coggins provided constant encouragement and invaluable downtime, usually at Spring Run Trout Club. As anyone who knows me can attest, I wrote this dissertation so that one day I can just go fishing, but fishing is immeasurably better with friends. Bill Trollinger deserves much more than the bottle of scotch I have promised him. He is my teacher, colleague, mentor, and friend. When we heard that my father had terminal cancer during the last stages of writing and revising, Bill encouraged me to put the work on hold. Some things, he reminded me, are much more important than dissertations and degrees. This was wise – and very appreciated – advice. I have learned as much about authentic Christian living from Bill as I have about the history and theology of evangelicalism. ix I dedicated this dissertation to my mother. Over the past nine years, she has been my faithful dialogue partner. When I needed to run something by an evangelical who would listen and challenge me, I would turn to my mom – sometimes simply to have a conversation in my head. This dissertation was not written to her but for her. She and my dad together taught me about Jesus and what it means to love well. Their names deserve to be on the cover as much as mine. x TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………...iv DEDICATION…………………………………………………………………………....vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……………………………………………………………...vii LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………………………...xii PROLOGUE……………………………………………………………………………....1 CHAPTER 1: DESIRING CERTAINTY……………………………………………… 29 CHAPTER 2: FEARING SUBJECTIVITY…………………………………………… 58 CHAPTER 3: WRINKLING TIME…………………………………………………… 88 CHAPTER 4: PENETRATING DARKNESS……………………………………….. 139 CHAPTER 5: GAINING CONSCIOUSNESS……………………………………….. 171 EPILOGUE……………………………………………………………………………. 226 BIBLIOGRAPHY……………………………………………………………………... 236 xi LIST OF FIGURES 1. Hume’s Idealist Argument Denying Moral Certainty……………………………...155 2. Reid’s Rebuttal……………………………………………………………………...156 xii PROLOGUE Certainties – even the idea of certainty itself – were shaken and reclaimed. It had not felt like fracture. It had felt like war. Daniel Rodgers, Age of Fracture1 If the “Battle for the Bible” is indeed a war – and many evangelicals think it is2 – then its casualties are not hard to find. The dismissal of Michael Pahl as well as a number of other faculty and administrators from Cedarville University is but one of the more recent examples. What stories trickled out of the small Baptist college in central Ohio mirrored earlier purges and splits of other broadly evangelical schools, institutions, and denominations.3 As in many of these evangelical battles, the role played by inerrancy at Cedarville was explicit. Much of the turnover stemmed from the trustees’ release of doctrinal white papers in response to the publication of Pahl’s The Beginning and the End, a wonderful little book highlighting literary connections between Genesis and Revelation.4 At stake was the historicity of Adam and Eve, a position with which Pahl confessed his wholehearted agreement, though for theological – not exegetical – reasons. 1 Daniel T. Rodgers, Age of Fracture (Cambridge, MA: Belknap, 2011), 179. 2 For example, Harold Lindsell’s 1976 incendiary text, which is widely understood to have been the catalyst for the ferment surrounding the formation of the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, took the title The Battle for the Bible.