To the Editor:

Mr. Harrison responded to the point I made with Mr. Tilford in which I challenged Mr. Tilford's position on the inerrancy of Scripture. He states that the Scriptures are our only infallible rule [of faith and practice], a proposition I accept. He then seems to want to make Scripture something more, basing it on the passage from 2 Timothy 3:16 that says, "All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work." That is not really a very helpful passage, because the term "scripture" there must mean the generic "writings," since there was no canon at the time. At the time the passage was written, "scripture" would have included many writings that Mr. Harrison would not much like to include as our authority. "Scripture" as the canon of the Bible we know, was a much later development. At the time of writing, the Hebrew canon had not yet been closed, and the Christian canon was not closed until the 4th century.

Mr. Harrison also challenges my characterization of the conservative side of the debate as holding "rigidity of theological precepts, the measurement of a Christian by certain visible standards, the tendency to assume to know God's judgment (which I find real risky), [and] the tendency to interpret in a very narrow way . . ." He says he knows some liberals who are like that and some conservatives who are not. Moreover, he notes that my description of liberals as embracing "the subjective interpretation of history and authority, where one's own interpretation, grounded in personal experience, becomes the criterion by which truth is measured" is very common on the conservative edge of the church.

I agree. The generalizations I made were intended to raise particular issues. That they all apply to both edges of the church is certainly true, which only underscores my thesis that these two edge groups function in identical ways.