Should Wesleyans Embrace the Lausanne Covenant?

Photo by Aaron Burden on Unsplash

In his recent article, Should Wesleyans Embrace a Doctrine of Inerrancy?, Kenneth Collins does not directly refute the doctrine of inerrancy. Instead, he alleges that inerrantists are divisive and exclusionary. Collins specifically criticizes the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS), which he claims “divides the evangelical community” by making the affirmation of inerrancy a requirement for membership. 

In support of these allegations, Collins invokes the experience of anonymous friends and colleagues who can affirm the Lausanne Covenant or the Asbury Theological Seminary (ATS) Statement of Faith but who are nevertheless excluded from ETS because they cannot in good conscience affirm the Doctrinal Basis of that society. He describes these Christians as the victims of “a new form of cancel culture.” 

But how can a Christian who affirms the Lausanne Covenant object to the ETS Doctrinal Basis? Here are the two statements (emphasis mine):

Lausanne Covenant: “We affirm the divine inspiration, truthfulness and authority of both Old and New Testament Scriptures in their entirety as the only written word of God, without error in all that it affirms, and the only infallible rule of faith and practice.”

ETS Doctrinal Basis: “The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs.”

As shown above, the Lausanne Covenant, whose language was adopted by ATS, explicitly declares that the Bible is “without error.” The word “inerrant” means “without error,” so the only substantive differences between the ETS formulation and the Lausanne formulation are the qualifications “in all that it affirms” (Lausanne) and “in the autographs” (ETS). Do these qualifications indicate that different claims are being made about Scripture? 

Let us first consider the Lausanne qualification, “in all that it affirms.” John Stott, the chief architect of the Lausanne Covenant, explains this qualification in his Exposition and Commentary: 

Since Scripture is God’s Word written, it is inevitably true. … And since it is true, it is without error in all that it affirms. Notice the careful qualification. Not everything contained in Scripture is affirmed by Scripture. To take an extreme example, Psalm 14:1 contains the statement “there is no God.” This statement is false. But Scripture is not affirming it. What Scripture affirms in that verse is not atheism, but the folly of atheism, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God’.” It is important, therefore, in all our Bible study to consider the intention of the author, and what is being asserted. It is this, whatever the subject of the assertion may be, which is true and inerrant.

I know of no one at ETS who would disagree with Stott on this point. Consider, for example, the views of our current president-elect, Craig Blomberg. Blomberg uses the definition of inerrancy provided by Paul Feinberg: “Inerrancy means that when all facts are known, the Scriptures in their original autographs and properly interpreted will be shown to be wholly true in everything that they affirm, whether that has to do with doctrine or morality or with the social, physical, or life sciences” (emphasis mine). Note that this definition employs precisely the same qualification included in the Lausanne Covenant. 

Now let us consider the ETS qualification, “in the autographs.” This qualification acknowledges that copies and translations of the Bible are not necessarily without error in what they teach. For example, the RSV and NRSV translations of 1 Cor 7:21 give contradictory instructions to slaves. The NRSV states that slaves should remain in slavery, even if they have the opportunity to gain freedom. The RSV, on the other hand, states that such slaves should not remain in slavery. Thus the RSV and the NRSV cannot both be without error in what they affirm.

While the Lausanne Covenant does not specifically mention the autographs, Stott’s Exposition and Commentary indicates that the original words of Scripture are in view. Concerning the claim of “divine inspiration,” Stott writes, “The words themselves were ‘God-breathed’ (II Tim. 3:16, literally). Of course, they were also the words of men who spoke and wrote freely. Yet these men were ‘moved by the Holy Spirit’ (II Pet. 1:21) to such an extent that it could be said of their words ‘the mouth of the Lord has spoken it’ (Isa. 40:5).” 

In summary, both the ETS Doctrinal Basis and the Lausanne Covenant affirm that the Bible is “inerrant” or “without error.” (Note that in the Exposition and Commentary, Stott uses these synonymous designations interchangeably.) Furthermore, neither the qualification “in all that it affirms” (Lausanne) nor “in the autographs” (ETS) suggests that different claims are being made about Scripture. No one at ETS believes that the Bible is inerrant in what it does not affirm, and the Lausanne Covenant hardly requires one to confess that every copy or translation of the Bible is without error in what it teaches. 

In his article, Collins indicates that he and his anonymous friends disagree with the lengthy Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. I personally find the Chicago Statement to be a helpful and nuanced articulation of inerrancy, but that is really beside the point. Members of ETS are not required to affirm the Chicago Statement. To join ETS, one must simply affirm the Doctrinal Basis quoted above. 

Both the Lausanne Covenant and the ETS Doctrinal Basis are broad enough to encompass a range of understandings of inerrancy. As ATS President Timothy Tennent observes, 

The Lausanne Movement has embraced both those who understand “without error” as inerrancy in every detail as well as those who affirm a limited inerrancy which acknowledges that the Bible is wholly trustworthy even if the writers were not always technically accurate on certain minor historical or scientific facts, or when different details or broad summary statements emerge from multiple witnesses to the same event.

The members of ETS likewise represent a range of approaches to inerrancy. For example, while Blomberg attempts to harmonize John and the Synoptics on the timing of the crucifixion, Craig Keener allows the discrepancy to stand. Keener argues that John places the crucifixion on the Passover for “theological reasons,” while the Synoptics place the crucifixion on the day after Passover. According to Keener, John’s chronology should be interpreted “symbolically.” Keener is not only a member of ETS; he recently served as president of the society.

In conclusion, if Collins and his friends affirm the Lausanne Covenant, then they are welcome at ETS. I hope they will reconsider joining our society! More importantly, as the Global Methodist Church moves forward, I hope her American congregations will join with global evangelicalism in affirming that the Bible is “the only written word of God, without error in all that it affirms.” 

Murray Vasser is Assistant Professor of New Testament at Wesley Biblical Seminary.